|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Socrates16 posted:You're a very rare breed. Most statists are worried population control, not the need grow or maintain the population. I have probably been beaten, but this is hilarious. You can't pay for poo poo this precious (well, I guess it costs  ), thank you  Yes, that was a thing statist were worried about at one point, but then the demographic reality that well-off societies have less children than poor societies was observed. Now lots of poor people want in, and we need them because we need more people to maintain our society. But some people find that fact scary. You are talking as if you read some books and forgot that they are rooted in a different historical context than our own. And as if you have little knowledge of those ideas outside of that historical context. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Aug 11, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Christmas Present posted:
Now now, we're better than that. .... Okay no we're really not, but we should try to be better than that. If only because jrod is someone worthy of our pity, because he does not realize the full ramifications of what it means to live in the world he desires. Maybe someone should take him to a game of Shadowrun or something, that might help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Ok I've lurked here enough, here's a hypothetical, or what I like to call the Argumentum ad Crassus: It's the Libertarian paradise you've dreamed of, but now your house is on fire Don't worry, I'm part of the local fire department. Here's the thing though, my team won't put out the fire unless you sign the deed to your house over to me. I will provide the market value of your house in whatever non-currency is appropriate, let's say five hundred pounds of gold. Enough to buy another house of equal or possibly even greater value, and I'll give you a month to pack up the possessions that survive the fire and move to the new house. Maybe I don't want your house, maybe I want your car, maybe I want you to be my employee for two years. You will be compensated properly for all these things, as my plans for your house/car/employment etc are more profitable to me than they are just sitting where you are right now. Your insurance might pay for the damages, they might also decide that you used an inferior brand of electrical socket and the fire is the fault of your negligence and choose not to pay out, they are well within their rights to do this as outlined by the contract you signed. The odds are they won't renege, after all they need a majority of their customers to be happy or else no one would sign up for their insurance, but majority could be as low as sixty percent and meanwhile I'm right here, with a 100% guarantee that you will have a roof over your head a month from now. My competition will put out the fire for a flat rate of 10 pounds of gold, considerably cheaper but you have to produce proof that those 10 pounds of gold are in your possession and can be paid immediately after the fire is extinguished. If you do not they just keep driving, because if you don't pay them what are they going to do? Set your house back on fire? They are also not here, they could be here in ten minutes, or they might even see that I got here first and decide not to waste fuel chasing after a client when the competition is already on the scene. There is a free fire department but their equipment is much cheaper than my fire department's because they have to count on the donation jar rather than immediate profits. Again though, I got here first, are you willing to wait until the other guys get here while your house is on fire? So two questions: -What is stopping this scenario from happening? -Doesn't it sound so much easier to just pay taxes for a fire department?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
In what way is a DRO not an authoritarian, anti-free market, anti-voluntary statist manifestation? I have to be in their good graces to live, I cannot engage in free and open commerce with customers of the DRO without its approval, even if that customer wants to engage in commerce with me and feels selling me her house should in no way involve the DRO, all of society is built around the DRO to the point that I cannot marry a non-DRO member, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:My god you are so loving stupid it is embarrassing. Why don't you enlighten us all with your in depth knowledge of the economic concept of time preference? a couple hours later jrodefeld posted:See, now this is a very reasonable concern. I appreciate this line of questioning, not just ad hominem Tourettes-like outbursts of "racism" and pointless name calling. Pretty typical libertarian end-of-the-nose myopia in action, folks! jrodefeld this is addressed to you in about as much seriousness as I can muster over a philosophy that most reasonable people who aren't filthy rich disavow by the time they're 30: In your philosophy, if I catch a thief in the house I own attempting to steal my television, am I authorized to use lethal force to stop the thief? Why or why not? What if he is stealing a Picasso? Or a loaf of bread? Or an item that has no market value but unspeakable sentimental value? I don't expect you to answer this question, since it is a difficult one and you don't really answer those, but it's worth a try.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Ok I've lurked here enough, here's a hypothetical, or what I like to call the Argumentum ad Crassus: Well presumably what you would do is pay a monthly subscription fee to a Home Accident Protection Agency ahead of time, and upon signing up you would sign a contract with them that details exactly what they would protect your home and possessions from and how they would do it. This, of course, would be rather expensive, so you and everyone on the block pool your money to buy a protection subscription at a group rate with a small discount. Then, to lower costs even more, the entire community agrees to all buy a community-wide subscription together. And then decide that each month they will all pay for this, and they will appoint someone to go around and remind people who forget. And part of the contract everyone signs will stipulate that if you are negligent in your contribution the community as a whole can take pieces of property at fair market value to cover your contribution. It's all so much better and completely than having a State do this because 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Total central planning is an impossibility, therefore all forms of collective decision-making will fail, and the market, despite repeated failures throughout its history, will always succeed. Except for any corporate governance structure in existence. Most major corporations do not run on individual preference, or the wants and desires of individuals, and they remain the most efficient economic actors. I agree that total central planning is probably not possible, but the idea that a collective decision to limit the holdings of land, say, that an individual can acquire is a wholly different argument. As to your wholly different argument about "collective decisions", the question then becomes whether the individual chooses to associate with others on the basis of voluntary agreement and trade, or to impose their individual preference on others against their will by force, (or accepts other individuals imposing their will by force). I consider it preferable to seek mutually beneficial ways to satisfy my wants, I respect and tolerate others' right to have peaceful goals and wants that differ from mine (or any arbitrarily defined "majority") and I reject the initiation of force as a means to any end. Ultimately only individuals are capable of acting, and the concept of "collective action" is an illusion often used to justify harmful non-consensual actions. That's why I asked the previous poster how "us" and "our" can be properly defined when talking about resources in general. I find the concept of limited liability corporations and "corporate personhood" very problematic, and I understand those things as legal fictions enforced by state power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
I think this was mentioned earlier but who is going to regulate the RF spectrum in a libertarian society? That is something that absolutely requires some sort of central regulatory agency to prevent it from becoming completely unusable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:I think this was mentioned earlier but who is going to regulate the RF spectrum in a libertarian society? That is something that absolutely requires some sort of central regulatory agency to prevent it from becoming completely unusable. As I said earlier all libertarians need to get off the internet and only post by registered private mail because all the forms of electronic communication they use to talk down to statists are literally impossible under their proposed government. You will never get a libertarian to debate the concepts even small local governments have to deal with like right of way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:I think this was mentioned earlier but who is going to regulate the RF spectrum in a libertarian society? That is something that absolutely requires some sort of central regulatory agency to prevent it from becoming completely unusable. laffo, nobody will regulate it. Because regulation is bad, free market is good, because Mises said so. QED. Libertarians reject most revisions and additions made to classical liberal economics since like the 1860s. Heck, they don't even agree with Adam Smith and Ricardo. It's more like they take Adam Smith, rip out all the pages that they don't like, and replace them with a note scrawled in crayon in big block letters saying IF SOMEONE CONTRADICTS THIS, THEY'RE COMMIES icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Lumpen posted:It seems to me that you're inappropriately putting words in my mouth and making general statements about decision-making outcomes that aren't supported by what I said. As soon as a person's decisions have negative externalities, as soon as they produce consequences beyond themselves, voluntarism falls apart. The idea that such a non-interventionist existence is possible is an illusion, because it requires treating everyone as if they exist in a bubble without impacting the world they live in. Individuals acting in concert for the long term benefit and sustainability of their community is exactly how we have managed to build societies and achieved technological advancement in the first place. By all means go live in the woods and eat berries, but the second you want to build a fence or cut down a tree or anything that has an impact on the environment and resources available to others, you've lost the premise of non-interference. I do think democratic structures could be much more consensus driven than they are now, but honestly the one rear end in a top hat who wants to dam a river that the 99 others use and want kept the way it is really should consider himself lucky they don't just murder him as a threat to their wellbeing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:Out of curiosity, is it just me and jrodefeld that are libertarians in Debate and Discussion as far as you all know? I don't think I've ever seen another. I've poked my head in here from time to time but never posted until I saw this thread. Ancaps are all over facebook so its a bit of a shock being in a forum without more than a few. D&D used to be infected with libertarians back in the mid 2000's. Then they either grew up or ran away when they couldn't handle people asking how their childish worldview based on everyone being rational and informed could possible work in a world full of uninformed people constantly making irrational decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:As I said earlier all libertarians need to get off the internet and only post by registered private mail because all the forms of electronic communication they use to talk down to statists are literally impossible under their proposed government. You will never get a libertarian to debate the concepts even small local governments have to deal with like right of way. That's what's so laughable about one of Jrod's earliest posts, where he said something to the effect of "In Libertopia, anyone who doesn't like their job can just look up new skills on the internet and master those skills at home, just like I did!" without even a hint of self-awareness or irony. It's completely baffling to me that he and other libertarians are so willfully blind about all the advanced in technology, medicine, and quality of life that were all impossible without a government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:Now now, we're better than that. .... Okay no we're really not, but we should try to be better than that. If only because jrod is someone worthy of our pity, because he does not realize the full ramifications of what it means to live in the world he desires. Pity is kind of patronizing, but aptly so. It just kind of feels like we're trying to convince a Jehovah's Witness to celebrate their birthday here. I was jrodefeld's mirror image in my college days. Thoroughly pro-Soviet, pro-central planning, and all because it seemed the most logical and merciful route to take. Then I went out into the world and was shown that capitalism has advantages, and that the status quo isn't desirable- but it's not universally hellish, either. I guess I'd identify as a socialist now, not really sure what the right-wing equivalent to that sort of transition is. A Democrat? The point is: purestrain logic makes sense when you have no life experience, but the older I get the more I find it doesn't do a very good job of presupposing how human interaction goes and that other people might actually know more about the topic than my 22-year-old self did. I don't think he's going to have a lightbulb moment here on the SA Forums, that's going to happen out there in the world, if it happens at all. Peanut Butler fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's what's so laughable about one of Jrod's earliest posts, where he said something to the effect of "In Libertopia, anyone who doesn't like their job can just look up new skills on the internet and master those skills at home, just like I did!" without even a hint of self-awareness or irony. It's completely baffling to me that he and other libertarians are so willfully blind about all the advanced in technology, medicine, and quality of life that were all impossible without a government. Basically, If you all want to shut this nonsense down properly you just need to focus on the way the internet exists and is maintained today. There is no 100 years of self referential libertarian bullshit on how to build and maintain telecommunications infrastructure for them to hide behind like there is with the racism stuff. Further there's plenty of nerds to explain in no uncertain terms why the libertarians cant all build their own last mile connections or actually manage proper interconnects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
I am still waiting on an explanation on how nonviolent passive resistance is in fact aggressive force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I am still waiting on an explanation on how nonviolent passive resistance is in fact aggressive force. yeah don't hold your breath that's a hard question to google a pro-ancap answer to
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I am still waiting on an explanation on how nonviolent passive resistance is in fact aggressive force. Didn't he already try? He's said, or at least alluded to, that trespassing is an "initiation of force" against the user, and so the property owner is thus justified in using an equal amount of force to remove them. In this case, asking them to leave. Now, it seems that what Jrod is trying to say is that ignoring this request constitutes an escalation. Thus demanding them to leave is justified. And ignoring that is another escalation, permitting attempts to physically remove the person. Continuing to resist leads to greater and greater amounts of "defensive force" to be used. So if someone chained themselves to a piece of your property you could conceivably go as far as to kill that person even if they made absolutely no show of physical retaliation or perceivable threat. I could be wrong, it's true that Jrod has been intentionally vague about this, but that's what I've gather from his posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I am still waiting on an explanation on how nonviolent passive resistance is in fact aggressive force. I was typing something else up here, but I just realized. Jrod says the main reason that harming people is bad is because it violates their property rights, correct? In this case it's their body, but property is property so whatever. Now when somebody is making inappropriate contact with you, they're doing so by placing themselves on your property without your permission, something that we call can agree is forceful. What does that make trespassing, then, if it also involves somebody placing themselves on your property without your consent? Enough dancing around the subject, I'll just say it: under Jrod's hosed up philosophy, trespassing is rape.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
I personally identify as a semi-socialist imperialist, but I also acknowledge that my desires for conquest, empire, and absolute authority are pretty much just ridiculous pipe dreams built up under the assumption that I could not possibly be worse than any of the fuckwads currently in office who insist on loving everything up in the name of personal careers. I don't fully trust democracy because it relies on people, and people will make dumb decisions thinking it's for the best for themselves and everyone else- see the Jimmy Carter administration for more information- even if you can prove beyond all shadow of a doubt they are objectively wrong. But the thing is I acknowledge that I very easily could gently caress everything up infinitely worse than they ever have, even with the best of intentions, even wanting everyone to live a happy and comfortable life. My decisions, regardless of how noble, could easily gently caress everything up forever because I am a human and flawed, and the people I would rely upon are also human and flawed; and that is why I say pity for jrod- even if it's patronizing, even if it's somewhat insulting. Like Present said, life experience really helps broaden your worldview a lot, but you have to actually let the information sink in and not just shut it out all with your fingers in your ears screaming NO NO NO NO NO IT'S NOT WHAT I WANT NOT HOW I WANT IT MUST BE MY WAY. It's always nice to have a fantasy world where everything goes right and nothing goes wrong but at some point one must accept "reality is a thing that exists."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:Enough dancing around the subject, I'll just say it: under Jrod's hosed up philosophy, trespassing is rape. That cable box termination at the edge of your property? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It does seem like Libertarians don't really have a problem with someone having a "monopoly on force" per se, just that it happens to be "the state" that's wielding it and not a private company and not them. To be fair, Stefan Molyneux regularly reposts quotes that have been deleted or removed, or just sources them at the top of an the comments section so that everyone can see how much the people love him. I don't think he bothers to pretend to be someone else... he desires the approval of others far too much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Lumpen posted:It seems to me that you're inappropriately putting words in my mouth and making general statements about decision-making outcomes that aren't supported by what I said. You know I think you're onto something here but you aren't taking this mistrust of collective action to its logical conclusion. quote:As to your wholly different argument about "collective decisions", the question then becomes whether the individual chooses to associate with others on the basis of voluntary agreement and trade, or to impose their individual preference on others against their will by force, (or accepts other individuals imposing their will by force). What are these so called "individuals" you refer to? Individualism is really just an illusion fostered by language. If you split a person's corpus callosum then the seperate hemispheres of their brain will operate independently of each other, each displaying the apparent hallmarks of consciousness. On the outside the person will appear to be a single 'person' or 'individual' but when you isolate the sensory information going to each hemisphere you'll find there are seemingly multiple centres of consciousness each operating on information the other hemisphere lacks. Clearly to avoid falling into the trap of collectivism we should avoid speaking of an 'individual'. Instead we must identify the specific region of the brain that motivates each action. Enough brain collectivism! The hippocampus, amygdala, nucleus accumbens and cerebral cortex should all be allowed to pursue their own self interest without interference from something as authoritarian and anti-free market as a "personality". You might think that you want to stop smoking cigarettes to avoid cancer or stop eating fatty food so you can lose weight. But really that's just "you" ignoring the rational self interest of your nucleus accumbens trying to maximize its dopamine intake. Who are "you" to make decisions for the nucleus accumbens? quote:I consider it preferable to seek mutually beneficial ways to satisfy my wants, I respect and tolerate others' right to have peaceful goals and wants that differ from mine (or any arbitrarily defined "majority") and I reject the initiation of force as a means to any end. Ultimately only individuals are capable of acting, and the concept of "collective action" is an illusion often used to justify harmful non-consensual actions. That's why I asked the previous poster how "us" and "our" can be properly defined when talking about resources in general. I find the concept of limited liability corporations and "corporate personhood" very problematic, and I understand those things as legal fictions enforced by state power. Ultimately only individual brain systems are capable of acting, and the concept of "individualism" is an illusion often used to justify harmful non-consensual actions. That's why I'm asking you how "I" can be properly defined when talking about a human being. I find the concept of individualism or "individual personality" very problematic, and I understand those things are just a conceptual fiction enforced by language and socialization. Helsing fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Didn't he already try? He's said, or at least alluded to, that trespassing is an "initiation of force" against the user, and so the property owner is thus justified in using an equal amount of force to remove them. In this case, asking them to leave. But sitting in a place longer than permitted isn't force and refusing a request to move isn't an escalation of force. It's the same amount of force, which is zero.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I am still waiting on an explanation on how nonviolent passive resistance is in fact aggressive force. It is by definition. There's no thought or reflection or explanation required here, he doesn't have to think about why these two are the same thing. It says very clearly in the Ancap Handbook, "ALL ABROGATIONS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE AGGRESSIVE FORCE", and that's all the explanation that's necessary. Ludwig Von Mises said so, therefore it is true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:But sitting in a place longer than permitted isn't force and refusing a request to move isn't an escalation of force. It's the same amount of force, which is zero. Not to the Libertarian. Refusing to allow the property to owner to use the property as he wishes it (In this case, not have a person on it) that is worse than merely trespassing, and thus is an escalation of force. I never said that it was a particularly good argument, because it is not. But it is consistent with jrod's views.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
I'm glad that Jrod could so quickly get his cards all on the table and let us know he is a statist that supports the use of force and violence against nonviolent people  .Jrod, why is using violence against a civil rights activist at a sit in a better use of violence than using violence to redistribute wealth? Which should the state (whether you want to call it a government or DRO association or a pug, whatever) prefer over the other?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
“All day I've faced a barren waste” Then he was led out into the desert to be tempted. “But life cannot maintain itself alone.” (Frédéric Bastiat The Law) “Without the taste of water, cool water” “but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) “Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.” (Frédéric Bastiat The Law) “Old Dan and I with throats burnt dry” “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ (Matthew 4:7) But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. (Frédéric Bastiat The Law) “And souls that cry for water” “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ (Matthew 4:10) “When, then, does plunder stop?” (Frédéric Bastiat The Law) “Cool, clear, water” On the basis of the eternal will of God we have to think of EVERY HUMAN BEING, even the oddest, most villainous or miserable, as one to whom Jesus Christ is Brother and God is Father; and we have to deal with him on this assumption - Karl Barth “starting from acts of choice; economics becomes a part, although the hitherto best elaborated part, of a more universal science, praxeology” (Von Mises, Human Action) “Keep a-movin, Dan, don'tcha listen to him, Dan He's a devil, not a man” “You shall have no other gods before[a] me. (Exodus 20:3) But freedom can make you unconstrained. You are free to make these stones to bread? "And he spreads the burning sand with water Dan, can ya see that big, green tree? " I am not yet free. - unattributed civil right movement Follow Liberty it can free you "Where the water's runnin' free And it's waitin' there for me and you? " Freedom cannot be in the likeness of sin, it cannot be for sin, and it cannot condemn sin. Would you not make “proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge (of freedom) provides” (Human Action Von Mises) "It's water, cool, clear water." Freedom cannot goto the cross. It cannot survive it’s negation. But, “You must have the will to win.” (Fred Koch attributed C. Koch KII newsletter) "The nights are cool and I'm a fool" Does winning have meaning? Winning is not the truth. You can have “all their authority and splendor” (Luke 4:5) "Each star's a pool of water Cool water" Vanity of vanities! All is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 1:2) But “men must act this way if they want to make their actions more successful than otherwise” (Human Action, Von Mises) "But with the dawn I'll wake and yawn And carry on to water Cool, clear, water." (Then) the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time. (Luke 4:13) Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Christmas Present posted:Pity is kind of patronizing, but aptly so. It just kind of feels like we're trying to convince a Jehovah's Witness to celebrate their birthday here. That's exactly it, it's like arguing for marriage rights with a southern baptist. You can get them to comprehend all of the arguments and admit that in a world where we respect freedom and human rights you are inarguably correct, but they will keep saying "I am a Christian and I believe gay marriage is wrong. Surely you don't disagree with that?" *cites Paul* The way ancaps cite their church fathers, the blind faith they have in them, the way they say "a HA somebody answered that" and throw you a text wall that they themselves don't examine critically...it's a religion. That's all it is. When you engage with people about libertarianism enough you either abandon it, change to civil libertarian social democracy because you always really cared about civil rights more than property rights, become a real anarchist or lose your mind and become a religious ancap. Also I wasn't seriously suggesting that other guy was a sockpuppet, I guess things have to be spelled out for folks like you who crush fun
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not to the Libertarian. Refusing to allow the property to owner to use the property as he wishes it (In this case, not have a person on it) that is worse than merely trespassing, and thus is an escalation of force. It may (or may not) be morally "worse" than mere trespassing, but in any event it is not force. He says that it is never justified to initiate force. If you are physically removing a nonviolent resister you are initiating force. His only response to this is to attempt to redefine the concept for his own ends. Without getting into any arcana about libertarian thinkers or their statements or economic theories, at its most very base level the concept is totally hosed. There really is no need for any rebuttal more complicated than that. It's like arguing with a militant vegan who thinks it's ok to eat beef because cows aren't animals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It may (or may not) be morally "worse" than mere trespassing, but in any event it is not force. He says that it is never justified to initiate force. If you are physically removing a nonviolent resister you are initiating force. His only response to this is to attempt to redefine the concept for his own ends. Without getting into any arcana about libertarian thinkers or their statements or economic theories, at its most very base level the concept is totally hosed. There really is no need for any rebuttal more complicated than that. It's like arguing with a militant vegan who thinks it's ok to eat beef because cows aren't animals. I fully agree with all of this. Hopefully jrod will address this when he gets back, but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
It is bullshit that jr was able ignore having to answer for completely making poo poo up about the NHS.
sudo rm -rf fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Lumpen posted:When you say "our" resources, how do you define "us"? Only individuals are capable of acting. When you say "maximum possible benefit", how does one properly determine what is beneficial, and to whom, and when? By 'us' I mean human beings, as many as possible - though for a variety of reasons, some good some terrible, we tend to make resource decisions in smaller groups. And groups of people can act perfectly well. Collective acts consist of several individual acts. If every time someone says 'we got in the car' you reply 'collective action is an illusion, only individuals can get into cars', you have a serious comprehension problem. Deciding what is beneficial involves investigating the likely results of the possible courses of action and judging them by your personal standards of what is good. Of course people will disagree about such things. This is one reason why it is bad for some unelected people, called 'owners', to control resources absolutely. In democracy we all have a say, and our self-interest actually helps us make a decision that benefits at least the majority. The autocratic right of homesteaders is no more reasonable than the autocratic right of kings was, and it should go the same way. quote:My understanding is that the free market, with individual ownership of property and voluntary exchange, is the system that best facilitates the allocation of resources and factors of production to satisfy the various wants of individuals, respecting their individual choices. It is very easy to see that this is not true, by considering the case of the person with no money, whose wishes are completely ignored.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:It is bullshit that jr was able ignore having to answer for completely making poo poo up about the NHS. I remember in his last thread when he made up some poo poo about waiting lines in Canada, a Canadian poster told him to shut the gently caress up because that  SOCIALISED MEDICINE allowed his younger sister to get cleft lip surgery free of charge to his parents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld, these are good-faith questions I have after seeing similar ones go unanswered here. Related to the RF spectrum, what about all other externalities that result from use of your property? Since I assume zoning doesn't exist in Libertopia, let's say that I acquire a piece of property surrounded by residential areas because it has access to abundant natural resources and shipping routes. I decide to construct a widget factory there to take advantage of these things and make money. I'm assuming that Jrod and I can both agree that physical pollution (like dumping waste into the river or letting it seep into the water table) would be bad because it would interfere with the natural resources on neighboring properties. But what about pollution that is less clear? What if my factory creates a great deal of noise but I want to run it 24 hours a day to maximize my profits? What if it creates a persistent foul smell? Where do my property rights end and theirs begin? If we lump "silence" and "smell-free" into natural resources intrinsic to a property, do I then get to force you to stop utilizing your property that way if it infringes those rights? What if the factory owner and the nearby residents can't agree on what a reasonable level of noise or smell is? What is the next step?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I remember in his last thread when he made up some poo poo about waiting lines in Canada, a Canadian poster told him to shut the gently caress up because that Its pretty hilarious/telling how he constantly ignores posters with real life examples about how wrong he is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
He's bitten into the racism issue like an angry dog and is just shaking his head back and forth ignoring any other questions posters have posed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I remember in his last thread when he made up some poo poo about waiting lines in Canada, a Canadian poster told him to shut the gently caress up because that I know several libertarians I grew up with that occasionally try to convince of the evils of socialized medicine even after I relate my extremely positive experiences in the French system after being treated for about 40 cm^2 of 2nd degree burns. They look for any little tiny detail they can point to as being inferior to the glorious free market system, one guy even commented on pictures of the hospital room and talked about how dated the colors of the walls were. The worst part is that I would have done the same thing ten years ago when I was a stupid Internet libertarian. Raskolnikov38 posted:Its pretty hilarious/telling how he constantly ignores posters with real life examples about how wrong he is. I remember doing this same thing and it's really hard to put into words the reasoning behind it. I know now that I was trying to make evidence fit my conclusions but it's really hard to express the reasoning I used to justify it to myself. I was certain that there must be some hidden fact that would prove my position correct and if I just kept at it long enough I'd find it and other people will see the glories of
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
I want to bring back the healthcare stuff because it is completely ridiculous that he should be able to get off without a response. This was the first post on the topic: Bozza posted:How does libertarian anarchism explain the success of the great institutions of the state in Europe? For example the NHS? To which jrodefeld responded: jrodefeld posted:European nations are very in debt and are all financed through inflationary paper currencies. By what standards exactly is the socialized healthcare in Europe the best on the planet? Inevitably, the State must ration care under a socialized system. Our Corporate Fascist medicine in the United States is terrible as well but a common occurrence in Canada an Europe is to have people placed on waiting lists for a year or more for a common medical procedure. There are shortages and plenty of problems. Don't kid yourself. I highlighted a few of his specific claims, which were quickly challenged: Bozza posted:Ok, right, sorry. Now I don't expect you to be an expert in the history of socialised medicine within the UK but this is plainly bollocks. Utter, utter bollocks. You know that system of healthcare you're describing? Yeah we had that too. Actually, it's the exact model of healthcare we replaced with the NHS. Quantum Mechanic posted:I have literally never had to wait a year for a necessary medical procedure. Hell, I can decide to go to the GP and AT MOST have to wait until the next day. murphyslaw posted:E: also I'm alive today due to my country's horrible socialized medical scheme. I grind my teeth every day from the bitter knowledge that I owe my life to a filthy socialist healthcare system that is virtually free for anyone who needs it, the shame, the shame. Caros posted:Sleeeeeppppppp. As soon as healthcare moved towards "on the other hand, recorded history" phase of arguing with liberarians, jrodefeld elected to then ignore the topic and whined about political correctness instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:11
|
|
