|
Goddamnit you fucker! I have to sleep! I was literally brushing my teeth, saw this thread and went. No. NO! And now since I have poor impulse control I have to come in here and refute your poo poo before XyloJW can see that you've come back and lock the thread. Okay, so lets start at the top: quote:Many of you know me already. But before I write anything I want to please ask the moderators to allow me to engage on this forum. I will do my best to follow the rules. I will respond to recent replies on the last page of threads. I am passionate about these ideas and I have searched for good message boards to engage with leftists and I have found none that are as populated with knowledgeable and passionate leftists as SomethingAwful. I think it would be of benefit to permit me to engage in discussion with you all, for both you and me. I was banned last time and I assume it was because I abandoned a thread that I had created. I didn't abandon it, I had a major computer malfunction and I was without a PC for more than two months. I hope, as a paying member, you will permit me one thread where we can discuss the merits of libertarianism and compare and contrast it with various leftist ideologies. I am trying again with the best of intentions and I hope my good will is reciprocated. You get banned because you do this. This thing you have here, this thread? This is why you keep getting banned. Look at your own goddamned rap sheet. quote:Gimmick or the stupidest person in the universe. If he comes back and posts a million words on a dozen topics and says "I look forward to debate" ban him again, because I warned him twice already. You fail to grasp that the SomethingAwful forums are not Gamefaqs, or reddit or some other shithole forums. Outside of maybe ask/tell no one really posts up 'personal' threads where people hop in to argue solely with you. In case you're curious we actually do have a libertarian thread. I should know, I made it. Do you know what its called? Libertarian, An Cap and Jrodefeld appreciation station. (We miss you!) Did it occur to you to post in a thread that both contains the word libertarian and your loving NAME? Anyways, thats just a pet peeve and an explination of why you can expect to be paying  again pretty soon.quote:With that said, I will outline some principles that I have come to accept. I may repeat myself somewhat, but I think some of what I will say is new and is perhaps better said that what was posted before. Your post is a giant word salad of nonsense, so you'll have to forgive me for breaking it down into individual chunks. For starters, how do you think any of this is new? As I said we have a thread regarding libertarians where we have discussed this stuff for seventeen pages. Do you think we are stupid? Do you think we fail to understand your point of view? Do you somehow believe that we would all simply come to the light if you show up and repeat the same talking points again? Also in regards to the bolded point, you do realize that the whole point of an Axiom is for it to be so evident that it is irrefutable? Saying an irrefutable axiom is redundant. Also again, the part I italicized does not follow. I know the argument that you are trying to set up, that since we choose to argue rather than punch you in the nose, that must presuppose that everyone prefers to talk over punch. Its argumentation ethics 101. My standard rebuttal to it is this: quote:Suppose there is a person who is so desperate to resolve a conflict with another that they engage in non-truth tactics which lead to false beliefs on the part of the other. They have polluted the mind of the other for their gain. They have violated the mind of the other and hence engaged in a subtle form of violence. Either before or when engaging in argumentation they chose other values for themselves which were likely not the norms chosen by the other participant. Thus two people were engaged in functional argumentation both with the meta-goal of conflict resolution but operating by different norms or instrumental values to achieve that end. If done carefully, the innocent participant did not recognize that the other did not agree to their norms and gave the appearance of implicit consent by continuing the argument. Its actually from a delightful article which covers what is wrong with argumentation ethics which can be read here. Oh, and you do remember our last talk on Herman Hans Hoppe and why he is a racist shithead and you probably shouldn't take him seriously right? Lets continue. quote:If a person owns their own body and thus has the right to make decisions about how they use it, then how can they justly acquire property outside of their physical body? The libertarian argues that the only just way to acquire property is through homesteading of previously unowned or unused natural resources, otherwise known as original appropriation. If you own your physical body, then if you mix your labor with natural land then that which you transformed becomes in essence an extension of yourself and becomes your property. If you are a frontiersman and you come across previously unowned and unused natural land and you build a house, build a fence, graze cattle and plant crops, then that which you altered through your labor becomes your property. That is, no one has a better claim to maintain final decision making authority over that scarce resource than you. Okay, so I'm going to sort of speed through some of this poo poo cuz it IS 2:20 and my wife will soon be in to give me funny looks. Lets start with my favorite intellectual quote on homesteading and self ownership. quote:Self-ownership sucks and homesteading is retarded. Oh wait... no, that isn't it. Ayn Rand posted:[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent. Err.. nope, not that one either. quote:On an episode of The Simpsons, Mr. Burns built a sunlight blocking machine which cast the town of Springfield into darkness. According to labor mixers, this should be perfectly legitimate since one did not mix labor with the sunlight or at least that sunlight (since sunlight is a continuous phenomenon). Many immediately jump to the claim that their use involved sunlight and is harmed by the blockage. Unfortunately, they cannot make that jump because, to do so, would mean that they abandon the mixing justification and switch to a use justification. If one's willing to jump to that standard then what does it mean that the indigenous people were using land? It's also an example of "Is that your true rejection?" Do you believe that Mr.Burns is legitimate in blocking out the sunlight from the town of springfield with his giant metal disk. I know it isn't an accurate reflection of what might happen in reality, but it does reflect things such as building on a property in a way that blocks a view for example. Its a pretty simple question and I'd like to hear your answer if you can get to it before you are banned. quote:Libertarian anarchists oppose the State because we oppose the act of aggression. We don't believe that aggression can ever be justified. Aggression is the initiation of force. Violence is morally justified in self defense, to defend ones own body or justly acquired property from an act of aggression. Violence can be morally justified to compel restitution to a victim of aggression, provided the criminal is proven guilty in a legitimate court of law. But this must be proportional violence, proportional restitution given the extent of the crime committed. The punishment can be anything up to and including the original crime but nothing more. If someone shoplifts a candy bar, he or she can be made to pay the cost of the candy bar. I actually think I covered this in my thread, but if not I'll just mention it here. Almost everything in the national 'Libertarian' thought process is based off of southern demands for 'states rights' and other white supremacy jargon. As a prime example the Freemen on the Land got their start as Posse Comitatus, which in turn started as a way to get Northerners to gently caress off so they could go back to abusing freed slaves. Most of the top thinkers in your ideology who were born in the USA can be directly tied to Neo-Confederates, White Supremacists and so forth. Many libertarians 'oppose the state' insofar as they think it would be easier to oppress minorities without a strong federal government. Are you aware that Reason magazine, one of the premiere libertarian magazines published a series of articles, including one full front page issue of Holocaust denial in 1970, as well as Pro-Aparthied articles as late as 1982? Are you aware that when confronted with this they did not denounce the fact that they did it. I ask all of this because I have a feeling from all my reading and talking with you that you are an ideologically 'pure' libertarian as far as they come. I am curious if it worries you that so much of your ideology is based primarily around men who would be more than happy to enforce racist white culture under the guise of libertarian beliefs. I don't mean to suggest that you believe this, but the people you promote very much do. Does this concern you? quote:If someone murders a family member, the punishment can be anything up to and including capital punishment. This is hosed up. You should not support capital punishment, Libertarian or not. Seriously reconsider this viewpoint. quote:However, the initiation of violence, that is assault against the self ownership of another or his property, is morally unjustifiable. The State must necessarily commit aggression. All States rely on compulsory taxation. Citation Needed. I can dig up my big ol' talk on the social contract for you if you forgot it from last time. I was actually rather proud of that one. quote:The second reason we oppose the State is that libertarian anarchist believe that ethics should be universalizable. In philosophy, an ethic governing human interactions must necessarily apply to all members of a society not just to some if it is valid. You cannot propose that murder is immoral in California but not in New York. Or that rape is wrong for a poor minority but not for a rich white man. No, ethical rules governing human behavior must be universalizable to all members of society if faced with a similar situation. By creating a State, you are creating two separate moral rules that apply to those inside of government (politicians, bureaucrats, military people, CIA, and all special interests that are granted special privileges) and those outside of government. You and I are not permitted to steal our neighbors property. But politicians can steal 30% of their income each year and call it an "income tax". You and I are not permitted to counterfeit money, but the Federal Reserve is. You and I cannot commit murder, but the military can wage aggressive wars and use drones to murder people. And on and on and on. The examples are endless. Again I thought I'd covered this one in my OP in the real thread, but I didn't.  Okay first off, taxation is not theft. I know we've said this a lot but can I give you one bit of advice? Stop with this bullshit. You are preaching to the heathens here, and using jargon such as taxation = theft makes you seem like a lunatic because no one here agrees with you on that and you've made no effort to prove it in any meaningful sense that we don't also disagree with. For us its no different than you yelling the sky is green, its wrong to us on its face and discredits you. Anyways, all of this comes back to my social contract argument from the last thread. Here is how it works: You cannot steal golf clubs from your neighbor, that is absolutely right. But why can't you? There isn't some universal moral code that will smite you. There isn't some higher power, or if there is its beyond the scope of this argument. You can't steal from me because as a society we have determined that those golf clubs belong to Steve. We have a whole system built around determining who owns what, and if you violate that, then the police show up and arrest you. The police get to arrest you, something that would normally be kidnapping, because we as a society agree that they can do it. Society is like money, its all just one great big series of fictitious agreements based on what people collectively believe. It is subjective, not universal. Taxation works the exact same way, stealing is wrong! But taxation is an exception to the rule that we as a society have decided upon based upon the fact that we like not living in a hosed up mad max world. To give a simpler example, I can't cheat on my wife. My wife can't cheat on me. This is universal in our marriage. But we could agree to say... a five person list of freebees celebrity bangs, because we are human beings, not emotionless robots run by inviolable code. quote:Legitimate laws and social services work this way. People can collectively delegate to civil authorities rights they already have. If someone commits aggression against you or your family, you have the right to be compensated and "made whole" by the attacker. If someone kills your wife, you should be allowed to kill the person who committed the murder. Therefore you can have the criminal tried and then the legal system can execute the killer on your behalf. Now, if the victim is morally opposed to capital punishment (like I am) they should be able to determine that a lighter sentence should be enforced. Any rational system of justice should be centered around restitution and making the victim whole, thus they should have a say in the punishment and they should be free to argue for a lighter sentence than the maximum (equal to the act of aggression committed). You'll get there, don't you worry! Moral principles do not need to be universalizable because that doesn't make sense. Again, unless you are talking about god there is no such thing as universalizable morals, because morals are the way we talk about what is right and wrong when it comes to humans dealing with other humans, and despite how much you want things to be neat and clean people are anything but. You are trying to apply some physics concepts to the interactions of people in a way that makes no sense. You are trying to say that your one size fits all moral code is the only way to go, but if those morals were universal then they would not need to be proven, they would simply be. quote:With these principles established, I have no other choice than to argue for libertarian market anarchism as the only moral and logically consistent way of organizing society. Again, seriously reconsider posting like this. XyloJW will have you out on your rear end within a day if you keep this poo poo up. He literally only left the last thread open as long as he did because it was funny. I find your posts entertaining if neurotic and rather shallow, and I'd hate to see you banned because you are too autistic to learn how these forums operate.
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
quote:Surely this is not controversial? In case you missed when I called you out on this on the last thread, stop this. Also stop with things like "Surely we all agree" or "But clearly...". No one here agrees with you. Talking as though people do agree with you makes you seem like a condescending prick swirling brandy in his bathrobe. Don't talk down to people. Edit: Oh and since I posted the only real in depth reply on the last page, please give it the time of day before you get probated. Pretty please?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
quote:The constant leftist refrain that libertarianism is simply propaganda pushed by billionaires to serve their interests has always been a ludicrous claim. The pretend libertarian Koch brothers had an influence but they simply co-opted and castrated the message. But who else? If the ultra rich all wanted libertarianism and it really served their interests, why haven't we had any libertarian presidents ever? Why isn't Congress full of Ron Pauls? I have to sleep. Why won't you let me sleep!? Charles Koch was the Libertarian party candadate for Vice President in 1980. By what metric does that make him less of a libertarian than say... Ron Paul (who by the way is a massive racist)? Charles Koch is also MASSIVELY important in your ideology despite what you may think. You know Reason magazine which I mentioned above? Heavily funded by the Koch's. CATO institute? Started out as the Charles Koch foundation. Heritage Foundation, George Mason University, Freedom Works etc. The people who get libertarians elected are bought and paid for by Koch funding. quote:The truth is that the ultra rich hate the free market. The free market doesn't serve their interests. Have you ever read a book called "The Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko? Kolko was no libertarian. He was a radical leftist historian and he saw that the supposed "Progressive" reforms of the early 20th century amounted to a capitulation of State power to the wishes of the largest business and financial interests. Yeah, that social security, trust busting, medicare, high unionization rates, unemployment insurance and glass steagal sure amounted to a capitulation of state power to the rich and powerful. Also you namedropped, you know my favorite part of a Jrodefeld thread? Figuring out what is wrong with the people you are quoting. In this case, Kolko. Here is what he had to say when Reason magazine was assembling a list of college professors whose courses might be of interest to libertarian students. quote:Under no circumstances should I be listed in your Registry, or thought to be in any manner a supporter of your exotic political position. If anything proves my thesis that american conservative ideology is more a question of intelligence than politics, it has been the persistent use of my works to buttress your position. I love Jrodefeld threads. Quoting a socialist poorly out of context to explain why we should go full retard free market.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
ATTENTION JROD! YOU ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME AUTISTIC BEHAVIOR THAT GOT YOU BANNED LAST TIME. IF THE OLD THREAD STILL EXISTED I WOULD GO AND GET IT TO SHOW YOU THE EXACT POST THAT CLARIFIES WHY YOU SHOULD NOT DO THIS! STOP REPLYING TO EVERY SINGLE POST IN SEQUENCE. YOU ARE MIDWAY THROUGH PAGE 2, THE THREAD AS OF THIS UPDATE BY ME IS AT PAGE 4. YOU WILL NEVER, EVER CATCH UP AT THAT RATE AND THE CONVERSATION WILL LEAVE YOU BEHIND. READ ALL THE REPLIES, PICK A COUPLE (MAYBE GROUP THEM TOGETHER BY TYPE OF REPLY) AND THEN REPLY TO THOSE. IF YOU ATTEMPT TO REPLY TO EVERY SINGLE POST YOU WILL GET PROGRESSIVELY BEHIND AND WON'T REALLY BE INVOLVED IN ANY SORT OF A DISCUSSION. SERIOUSLY, I HAD TO FIGURE OUT WHICH POST YOU HAD LAST REPLIED TO AND THEN EDIT IN COMMENTS TO A POST SLIGHTLY PAST IT TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU IN REAL TIME RATHER THAN WAIT TWO DAYS FOR YOU TO CATCH UP TO WHERE THE THREAD CURRENTLY IS. IF YOU KEEP DOING THIS XYLOJW WILL BAN YOU AGAIN FOR SURE, AND I WANT YOU TO STICK AROUND AS LONG AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A PRETTY BORING WEEK FOR ME. jrodefeld posted:There is a huge difference between voluntary democracy and coercive democracy. If you are hanging out with a group of friends and you say "who wants to go see a movie?" and a majority say yes, then that is a form of democracy. No one is compelling you to do anything. In the case of an arbitration agency that is representing the victims of aggression, this would all be stipulated in the contract and terms of service that those people agreed to. It is not compulsory. Okay, one more thing and then I'm totally going to bed. What happens to people who opt out, due to lack of funds or out of choice. Say for example, I am too poor to afford it, or too cheap, or I live in too nice of a neighborhood and you come and stab my wife. What happens? Can I hire these people after the fact to go and 'investigate' her murder? Or do I just not get justice. What happens if you aren't part of the justice network, do you just get to go free and clear? Or do they get to arrest you and hold you until trial? What rights do you have? Do you have the right to an attorney? Sure there are pro-bono, but what if there isn't one available? What if its a small firm that I hired because I'm poor? Do you have the right to remain silent? Who sets up the court and how? What if you didn't do it but are poor? What if they just picked up the first hobo they saw and said "He murdered your wife?" Your justice system seems to work poorly, but semi-functionally in a vacuum where everyone arrested is guilty, but what happens when people are innocent? quote:Without the State, a business doesn't have any power over me. In a market economy, an entrepreneur makes money by investing money into a new business venture. The job of the entrepreneur is to anticipate consumer demand and fill a need that people have. If he bets correctly and people find value in what he provides, they reward him with profits. If he bets wrong and people find no value in what he provides, he losses money and may go bankrupt. Unless they build a fertilizer plant next to your children's school that happens to explode. Or unless they dump toxic chemicals into the groundwater, or release toxins in the air that will increase cancer risk for the community three decades down the line where it is too late for you to do anything about it. quote:If you are a wage earner you can quit your job at any time. You can start your own business. You can develop different skills and move into a different line of work. Unless they are poor. Do you not understand that most people work paycheque to paycheque? Caros fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
gently caress it, I lied. Jrodefeld, did you know that metal lawn darts are banned in Canada? Its true, you can look it up on the HealthCanada. You can't sell them, but you can posess them, I know this because another stupid libertarian brought it up to me a while back. I looked into it and I found out why they were banned, would you like to hear? The short version is that they used to be sold as toys. You know, buy a set of lawn darts for the kids, it'll be a fun game for the whole family. They were marketed at children, then later sold provided they were not marketed as toys. This ended when Michelle Snow was killed by a lawn dart thrown by her brother's friend that went over a fence. David Snow decided this was loving dumb and after a year of lobbying he managed to get lawn darts banned in 1988. In the previous eight years 6,100 people had gone to the emergency room due to lawn dart injuries, with 81% of those being 15 or younger, and 50% being 10 years old or younger. This is naked government aggression. This is the government intruding on the free market and I LOVE IT. You want an example of where aggression is applicable here it is. The government stepped in and banned the sale of what was effectively throwing knives marketed to children. This company was selling a 'fun' product that was injuring thousands of children and killing nearly a dozen over a twenty year span. The company could not be sued because there was nothing wrong with their product, and they would have gone on selling them for years to come until the outcry finally outrode the money, during which child after child would be hurt or killed in the search of their profit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
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. Sleeeeeppppppp. The waiting lists in Canada are based off of triage. You need that new hip now, you get it now. You need it less, you get it less. What we don't have waiting lists for are medically necessary treatments. Do you remember that story I told you about why I'm not a Libertarian? In Canada we don't ration Cancer treatment in favor of Botox like they do in the USA. Don't kid yourself. America has waiting lists too, and they ration Health Care the same way anyone does, since it is a limited thing. Places with universal healthcare ration by need, the US rations by ability to pay. One of these is immoral and sickening, guess which one! If you are unable to pay, the wait list for something like Cancer treatment is infinite in the USA. Not even talking about cost savings, or effectiveness that should debunk the idea of a pay for use healthcare system. quote:When comparing terrible healthcare systems, I could see that given the low standards we are accustomed to, you could hear anecdotes about how someone received superior care under a Single Payer system. But these are very flawed, centrally planned, bureaucratic systems. Citation loving needed. This is not an answer you coward. You're handwaving and trying to pretend that the British system which is universally admired is somehow fundimentally flawed. quote:Fifty to sixty years ago, the United States had the best healthcare on the planet and it was not even close. Compared to today the technology was primitive of course, but the cost and delivery was superior in every way. Medical costs were affordable for almost all Americans and there existed an abundance of charity hospitals that served patients for free. First off, not true, you have to go back to about 1920 for this to be accurate. Also operating rooms looked like this.  quote:Going back even further is the forgotten but once prevalent institution called a "friendly society" or "mutual aid society". These clubs were like the Moose Lodge and the Elks Club (two still existed social clubs whose roots date back to the 19th century). These societies were common among working class people and the poor. Do you know why these systems failed? I'll give you a hint it had gently caress all to do with the AMA and a lot more to do with something you might have heard of called the great depression. You see, mutual aid societies are great when things are going good. However, when you have a giant gently caress off recession, mutual aid societies react the same way that other forms of charity do, which is to say that they collapse. Mutual aid societies for say... welfare are great until everyone needs it, and they're great for healthcare until 25% of their members (more like 50 since they were used largely by the poor) are unemployed. Then they collapse because they don't have enough income vs exposure. Mutual Aid Societies cannot replace a robust public system. Univeral healthcare in Britain did not retract when the financial crash hit, it kept steady. Food stamps didn't dry up when the recession hit, they actually expanded to cover more people since they are what is called a universal stabilizer. Fun fact, food stamps by itself accounted for more of the US GDP than all charity in the US combined in the 2008 recession. People give less when times are bad, which is the same point where they need to be giving more. quote:The market was actually working to provide cheap healthcare to the masses but the State intervened on behalf of the medical establishment. Costs rose through the roof, charity hospitals and mutual aid societies were put out of business by regulations and the welfare State. Here is a link debunking the idea that Mutual Aid socities were some perfect snowflake system that could somehow cover everyone for medical care despite all evidence to the contrary. quote:But there did exist a system of voluntary social insurance during the turn of the century. In From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, historian David Beito writes that there were thousands of fraternal societies across America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These societies were organized by religion, ethnicity, and other similar affiliations. They were also the most common provider of insurance and relief before the New Deal. In general, they would cover funeral costs and provide some sick pay. These were particularly important for low-wage workers, and played a bigger role in insurance than charity or welfare institutions. Politically and socially fragmented, they played no part in calling for a public role in social insurance. These institutions continue to be a focus of celebration for conservatives. Just a helpful hint since I am now for realsies going to sleep. You know absolutely nothing about healthcare. Way more than any other catagory of things you know nothing about. Do not try and tell me how awesome a free market healthcare system totally would be. I've seen the free market of healthcare in action. It killed a friend of mine. Caros fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. I just realized he actually put a tag on this one rather than leaving it as a poo poo post. Or was that a mod?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Okay guys, I just posted the following at one of my posts from last night. Jrod should read it at some point in the close future which is good. Hopefully he'll get the message and take it to heart.quote:ATTENTION JROD! From previous experience in threads, I'd suggest that we not bitch at him for ignoring our questions. He is one heavily autistic guy, and if we insist that he answer every question he'll actually try and do just that, and we'll end up with a time warped thread where he is twenty pages behind. It looks cool but it ruins the fun.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Psykmoe posted:So because I've not long been dealing with the subject matter, this quote is new to me. I suppose it partially answers my nagging question why legitimate land ownership only appears to start with libertarians and their immediate forebears. The simple answer here is that Ayn rand was an incredible racist. Going by what I remember I don't think Jrodefeld is actually an Ayn Rand supporter. He's more of the An Cap free market jerkoff than the objectivism type. quote:So An Cap ideas are really silly, but let me humor them for a moment: In most versions that I've seen the answer is more or less 'we will try to equalize things out a little' followed by 'the past is the past tho. I didn't do anything wrong and I shouldn't have to suffer for it. Bad things will continue to happen until we get rid of the state, so even a little imbalance in wealth is preferable.' quote:How would anarcho-capitalists have vaccinated much of the world against, for example, polio? Clearly people would have seen the financial advantage in not having polio and would have vaccinated themselves. Some nebulous 'group' would have seen that there was an advantage to eradicating it overseas as well and would have done that for 'reasons'. An Caps would have a series of defensive organizations to protect them from other countries. People would pay into these because of rational self interest. They would not invade anyone, but they wouldn't allow themselves to be invaded. Reasons. People would have more money because they would not be paying taxes and everything would be so much better with a free market. With the improvement to quality of living people would actually need less charity, and at the same time people would simply be able to donate more of their time and money to charity because people are not at all selfish when times are tough. quote:How do libertarians explain why people wound't just form new governments the second the original was removed? Especially considering it would be in their best interest in a libertarian society to do so since numerous people would have more power than one. Depends on who you ask. If its Herman Hans Hoppe his view is that anyone proposing setting up a state must be violently removed from society to keep it ideologically pure. I suspect Jrodefeld is more along the lines of the utopia however. He believes that once you get rid of the state things will be so good that you'd have to be stupid to want a state again. He suggests that he'd be totally okay with us starting our marxist paradise along his so long as we don't 'agress' against his libertarian paradise.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
quote:On the first request, if a moderator asks me to shut down this thread and move to an existing thread I'll do just that. For now, I'll continue to post here since this thread already exists. I don't see why starting a new thread is ban-worthy but I'll follow the rules. You would if you bothered to lurk for a few days. Or if you actually bothered to try to understand anything at all of the culture of these forums. Not to derail, but why SomethingAwful? Is it just that we're a wretched hive of leftist villainy so you wanted to come preach to us? What keeps bringing you back to a pay to post forum like this one? I'm genuinely curious about this because you clearly don't 'get' what these forums are about. You've never posted anywhere outside of D&D, and you don't seem to appreciate any of the humor or informal nature of the site. You feel like a missionary. quote:I don't accept that Hans Hoppe is a "racist shithead". I've read all of his supposed controversial statements and, without exception, those smears on the internet against him rely on distorted quotes and improper context. He strikes a nerve with some people. I don't agree with everything he says. And indeed, he does have a peculiar sort of social conservatism that he brings to bear on his libertarian analyses, but I think he is among the best in his theoretical economic work and his logical rigor. God I wish that the old thread hadn't been garbaged. Because I distinctly remember you having to distance yourself from Triple H on multiple occations when you had it pointed out to you that he said things like: quote:In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. Because in that very famous quote Hans Herman Hoppe is talking about physically removing homosexual people from his covenant communities. He is talking about segragation that could apply based on any criteria at all. In the Covenant community society he is suggesting (which incidently is no different from one with a social contract) Triple H believes that you can and should be allowed to remove anyone you find offensive based on any criteria. That is disgusting and you should have serious qualms trying to deal with the moral viewpoint that supports that. There is plenty more like that but I just wanted to remind you of the person that you actively said in the last thread had 'bad ideas'. I'll continue this line of thought shortly. quote:I know Rothbard has written quite extensively on questions such as these. I don't recall his precise wording on this subject. It's always amusing when you have to resort to completely impossible fantasies and cartoons to illustrate a potential problem with a real world principle for private property rights. It may be that other libertarian thinkers have a better answer than this, but if you were to literally erect a giant disk that would block out sunlight to an entire neighborhood, this would constitute an act of aggression unless the disk was built first before any houses were built. People's gardens would die, their health would suffer and their property would be as hurt as if you directly poisoned their soil, destroyed their lawns, etc. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The whole point of the exercise there was that it was an absolutely ridiculous example that could easily be scaled down to a smaller scale. More to the point, you didn't address the actual issue. Let me repeat the important part here: quote:On an episode of The Simpsons, Mr. Burns built a sunlight blocking machine which cast the town of Springfield into darkness. According to labor mixers, this should be perfectly legitimate since one did not mix labor with the sunlight or at least that sunlight (since sunlight is a continuous phenomenon). Many immediately jump to the claim that their use involved sunlight and is harmed by the blockage. Unfortunately, they cannot make that jump because, to do so, would mean that they abandon the mixing justification and switch to a use justification. If one's willing to jump to that standard then what does it mean that the indigenous people were using land? It's also an example of "Is that your true rejection?" You immediately made the jump here. Well clearly it would constitute an act of aggression. Why? As the quote points out, you have no right to that sunlight, you haven't mixed your labor with it and it is not your property. Clearly it affects your property, but your argument is that you only own what you mix your labor with, not what you use. While you are right that it certainly affects your ability to USE your land, how is it aggression apart from the fact that it is a comically large disk intended to block out the sun? What if someone built a giant fuckoff building next to your house that blocked out the sun for your garden. That impacts your property values, but is it agression? You suggest that we have a voluntary code to deal with those sorts of issues. We have that right now, its called zoning laws, it works because it is universal and enforced by law and city planning. What happens if someone doesn't voluntarily agree to that? What if Charles Koch decides that he loving hates you personally and builds a giant disk to block out the sun to your property. Or hell, what if he buys all the property around your home and simply states that you are not allowed on it. Congradulations, Charles Koch can now murder you via property rights. quote:I don't know of Reason magazine and those articles you mention. So they had an article about Holocaust denial? And one that you characterize as "Pro apartheid"? I'd have to see a lot more specifics before I condemn them as racists. I'm going to address this one in a separate post just below this one because I don't want to simply link to the articles and be done with it. I want you to understand just how wrong you are. quote:I don't accept your characterization. I think you are attributing racist motivations to people who are not racist. I support nullification and secession because I believe in decentralization and in weakening the State. I think the State has been especially vicious to minorities and they would stand to benefit most from its abolition. Ron Paul - The newsletters written under his name (probably by Lew Rockwell) a huge throbbing hard on for 'states rights' which has been code for abusing blacks since before the civil war. Opposition to the Civil Rights act and he was the only member of congress to oppose the issuing on a congressional gold medal to Rosa motherfucking Parks. Choice quotes include: quote:([W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. quote:Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of current events and statistical reports of the time. quote:Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a moron and a fraud. Paul also said Jordon was her race and sex protect her from criticism. In response, Paul said such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. quote:Also in 1992, Paul wrote, Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions. Rand Paul - Second verse same as the first. Opposition to the civil rights act, hired a man who was previously known as the 'Southern Avenger', a pretty blatently neo-confederate who was a chairmen of the 'league of the south'. I can go on but this is too easy. Lew Rockwell - Undoubtably wrote the Ron Paul newsletters. Was a contributing editor on physical copies of sed newsletters. Close personal friend of David Duke. Murray Rothbard - Again a man who spoke kindly of David Duke, the KKK office seeker. The only reason he didn't support a seperate state for blacks was because he was afraid it would cost too much in foreign aid. Famously supported false studies that indicated the blacks are just plain dumber than us white folks. Charles Koch - False libertarian or not he pays the bills for most of your major organizations. Anyways, the John Birch Society loves them because their daddy started it. More to the point the Koch's have direct connections to the Reason magazine articles I'm going to be talking about shortly. That is to say, the supported aparthaid and Holocaust denial. Triple H - I covered this above. He believes that segregation of people you don't like is a-okay. Thats bad just fyi. quote:No it doesn't "concern me" that you think that some libertarians are racist. I don't see this racism in the movement and if it exists, it is clearly on the fringes. Since my concern is aggression and violence, what people think in their minds is less important to me. If some people hold some outdated prejudices and stereotypes about different people but they believe strongly in the non-aggression principle this would make them far more moral and decent people that most politicians who actually enact policies that murder people. Racism is a stupid, collectivist belief but on the scale of potential harm actually using violence against someone is far worse than secretly thinking ill of them. The people I linked above are some of the most high profile libertarians and libertarian thinkers in the country. They are ones that you have cited on this very board if not in this very thread. The people in charge of your 'movement' are largely racist, and if you follow the history of the libertarian movement in its inception you'll find that it is supported by two pillars. Racism, and big business. You are being hoodwinked into believing that you are fighting for some universal freedom while the people in charge are using people like you to promote vile beliefs. Again, perhaps the single most mainstream libertarian talking point 'states rights' is a dog whistle about the civil rights act and the personhood of black people. Does that not concern you that if you actually succeeded things would get very, very bad for a lot of people? Does it not concern you that if Triple H had his way Homosexual people should gently caress right off somewhere else? quote:What about Jeffrey Dahmer? If the family of the victims of Dahmer wanted him executed, would you not permit this? Can you create a system where innocent people don't get arrested and put on death row? But to answer your question, no I would not, because murder to sate murder is loving savage. quote:I don't accept moral relativism. There are certain ways that humans interact that can be considered "moral" and certain ways that are "immoral". The discovery of ethical rules for conduct come through philosophic inquiry. But I cannot accept that an ethical standard for behavior can be discarded due to popular opinion or a democratic election. What you are doing is muddying the waters. You are purposefully making things as vague as possible. Ethics and philosophy are supposed to bring clarity to the questions: "what is right action?", "What are morals?" I'm not attempting to be vague, I'm attempting to explain to you that morality is a human construction, no different from the value of money or the concept of society. The only 'moral' reason it is not okay for me to crack your skull with a rock is that society says that it is wrong. There is no universal underlying idea that prevents me from doing it, or that judges me for doing so. If there are only two people in a total vaccum apart from all history and society, the only decisions that are moral or immoral are what they decide for themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
quote:I don't know of Reason magazine and those articles you mention. So they had an article about Holocaust denial? And one that you characterize as "Pro apartheid"? I'd have to see a lot more specifics before I condemn them as racists. Here, here and here are three links from Pandodaily containing excellent reporting on the issue. I'm going to pull some choice quotes from the lot of them so that you can get an idea as to how loving wrong you are. Also are you a libertarian who seriously doesn't know about Reason magazine, the single largest libertarian publication in the United States? Christ, you're like a loving hipster who doesn't listen to something because it's too mainstream. quote:Let the people who advocate immediate majority rule in South Africa and Rhodesia take note. It would be very nice to have a minimal libertarian government and that is what South African libertarians would like to achieve. But as long as the choice is between being governed by a relatively informed white minority and a Socialist black majority, apartheid in South Africa will stay. quote:The major black ethnic groups lumped together under the general term Bantu are as distinct from one another as Germany and France. They are largely illiterate, largely uncaring, mutually mistrustful, mutually antagonistic. They are not the great single black mass yearning to be free that sentimentalists and self-servers in other lands try to portray them. quote:I regret the fact that honest, law-abiding blacks cannot own property in or near white cities, but I realize that without this restriction separate development will fail and with it the capitalist system in South Africa. Property rights for me, but not for thee! quote:As all libertarians should know, unlimited democracies tend towards totalitarian systems, with the rulers competing with each other to control the political machinery. Some years ago, the whites realized that a democracy may deteriorate into a dictatorship in the wrong handsespecially when those hands have the wrong color to boot. quote:It is possible that in the past decade no country has moved further toward a libertarian society than South Africa has. YesSouth Africa. quote: To sell libertarianism, you must sell it under a formula which corresponds to the basic convictions of the guy to whom you sell it. An awful, but perhaps helpful tip for you Jrod. quote:The German concentration camps werent health centers, but they appear to have been far smaller and much less lethal than the Russian ones. quote:Next Month's REASON will be a special issue on the subject of historical revisionism. the critical revision of "official" versions of the doings of states is an important adjunct to the overall battle for liberty. As a preview of next month's issue and to introduce the subject to our readers, we are pleased to present an exclusive interview with one of America's leading revisionist historians, Dr. James J. Martin James J. Martin is a noted 'historical revisionist' which is a fancy way of saying holocaust denier. He joined the editorial board of the "Institute for Historical Review" which is of course home to KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and David Irving the world's most prominent Holocaust denier. Authors who contributed articles to Reason magazines special issue included one of the most notorious American pro-Nazi activists of the postwar era, Austin J. App, author of the 1973 tract, The Six Million Swindle: Blackmailing the German People for Hard Marks and Fabricated Corpses and contributing editor to the rabidly anti-Semitic magazine, the American Mercury. Two more authors hired to write for Reasons special issue included James J. Martin, a regular contributor to the same neo-Nazi American Mercury magazine; and Percy Greaves, a founding board member at the anti-Jewish hate group, the Liberty Lobby. Perhaps the most shocking article in Reasons special issue was penned by Gary North, who was also Ron Pauls congressional aide that same year, and has been one of the most influential figures in the Christian radical-right since the 1970s. Norths article in Reason mocked the Holocaust as the Establishments favorite horror story and questioned the supposed execution of 6 million Jews by Hitler. North also painted other rabidly anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers in a positive, contrarian-cool light, praising the works of David Hoggan, author of The Myth of the Six Million, French neo-fascist Paul Rassinier, and American historian Harry Elmer Barnes, considered the godfather of American Holocaust denial literature. quote:Probably the most far-out materials on World war II revisionism have been the seemingly scholarly studies of the supposed execution of 6 million Jews by Hitler. The anonymous author of The Myth of the Six Million has presented a solid case against the Establishment's favorite horror story - the supposed moral justification for our entry into the war... It goes on to say: quote:One thing is certain: 6 million executions or not, we did not intervene when the Soviet Union executed millions of kulaks - the private owners of small farms prior to their expropriation. So what was the point of all of this? Well REASON and many of your favorite libertarians including HHH and others were supportive of aparthied because it was whites oppressing blacks. That is pretty easy to follow, they are racists, and they are happy to see white people get some over on they dark skinned individuals. It isn't exactly rocket science here. The holocaust denial is tougher. Part of it is simply white supremacy, Neo-nazi bullshit, but Mark Ames makes a facinating case that the point of supporting holocaust denial from say... the Koch viewpoint is actually an intentional attempt to discredit FDR. Now we already know that revisionist bullshit historians that you support come up with a lot of lies about how the New Deal worked, and that is part of it, but much of FDR's legacy is tied into the success of the Just War. FDR took us into WWII and it led to us kicking the poo poo out of our enemies, stopping the holocaust. You can't say that FDR made the wrong decision entering WWII because to do so suggests that you would be okay with us having left European jews to go extinct at the hands of Hitler, that we would have allowed for millions more deaths. Unless those deaths didn't happen. Unless the holocaust is bullshit. Then you can attack FDR on getting us into a stupid war, and if you do that... well then clearly the new deal must have been a failure and we should abolish social security. That aside, I think this goes to show just how rooted in racism and disgusting ideology much of libertarian thought is. Also, for the record, Reason has not done the sensible thing and said "That was hosed up, we don't do that anymore." like all good libertarians they are rejecting evidence and denying that they did what they clearly and verifiably did. This is because many of the same people from the 1970's are still on their board, or are still actively involved. Oh and for shits and giggles, that list of racists that I mentioned up above? Every single one of them has been published at least once in Reason magazine since 1970, IE, during their holocaust denial, pro-apartheid period. Caros fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm going to focus on the charge of racism that you made towards the libertarians. Most of what you wrote is completely false or at least misleading. But I'll focus on Hans Hermann Hoppe for the moment. You are aware that you just replied to my series of connections between libertarian thinkers and racism/racists by saying that "You'll get to it" followed by a single link to a Hans Hermann Hoppe appologizer and then called it a day. You're not saying anything in your own words, you aren't arguing a point you're just pointing to what someone else said and going 'nuh uh'! But you know what, I've got time, lets talk about Triple H briefly and specifically. I am still eager to hear your view on all the other racist thinkers I've mentioned by the way. We've already talked about the private covenant bullshit, and I'll get back to why you are wrong on that (within this post even!) but first lets talk about immigration, another example of why Hoppe is a racist gently caress. In this article HHH talks about what he thinks would be a proper immigration system. His general view on this in a 'perfect' world is his same as the private covenant version, which is that any private property owner, or group of private property owners (covenant) should be able to exclude anyone, for any reason. Don't like black people, you don't have to deal with black people. Don't like Jews, then gently caress right off you dirty jews. This should be pretty abhorent on its face. The idea that we should go back to a state of being where segregation based on cultural, religious, or racial norms is disgusting but is in fact what Hoppe openly calls for. In an interview with Hans Herman Hoppe he had this to say: quote:I don't think that we, in the Western world, can go back to clans and tribes. The modern, democratic state has destroyed clans and tribes and their hierarchical structures, because they stood in the way of the state's drive toward absolute power. With clans and tribes gone, we must try it with the model of a private law-society that I have described. But wherever traditional, hierarchical clan and tribe structures still exist, they should be supported; and attempts to "modernize" "archaic" justice systems along Western lines should be viewed with utmost suspicion. This is a man who supports and encourages humanity to return to a loving tribal state. That rather than coming together as a race we should literally go back to tribal life style, or failing that, a private law society that accomplishes much the same thing. However, he acknowledges that this isn't really possible, because nearly everyone thinks it is retarded. So what is his (racist) view on how the US should handle immigration? quote:What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the "nature" of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility. Again, these are his words, not mine. This is Hans Hermann Hoppe's suggested immigration policy for the United States and western europe, and it basically amounts to putting up a sign on the statue of liberty that says "Whites only." So Jrodefeld, tell me how Hans Hermann Hoppe is not in fact basing a lot of his beliefs on racist exclusionary beliefs. I'm not even touching the fact that he thinks that Non-Europeans will have 'superior' intelligence since I hope to god (but doubt) that he means they went to better schools. And now, because I'm awesome like that, I'm going to touch on the private covenant thing. If you recall, in our last thread we had a big discussion where I explained the social contract to you. I know you read it because you replied to it in the same post where you tried to tell me that my friend dying of cancer because she couldn't afford treatment had nothing to do with free market healthcare being garbage. Now what you probably missed what with your computer crash was a later discussion about these private covenants and how they interact with and have their own social contracts. I'm going to try and reproduce it. My first question, Jrodefeld, is what is the difference between a private covenant and a government? I'm curious about your answer, because as far as I can tell the difference is 'scale'. A private covenant, as far as I can tell is functionally no different from a 'small' government. I say 'small' because there aren't actually any hard and fast limits on the size of these in Hoppe's writings. Its assumed they'd be small, but there are pretty big advantages to scale. Private covenants would have the power to tax, though this would be 'voluntary' taxation. As an example, if they covenant needed some sort of defense, say an army, they could request money from everyone to pay for it. If it is the consensus of the covenant (land owners) that they need this army, then anyone who chooses not to pay could be removed from the covenant, since the rest of the covenant could tell them to gently caress right off. So they have taxation. They probably have some form of leadership, HHH calls these the natural social elite (a very ubermensch term if I do say so myself) and the leadership would depend mostly on who owned what. You own land, you get to make decisions. You rent land, well then you are at the whims of the natural social elite (hereafter referred to as 'king'). Clearly they have social norms, that is something Hoppe talks about extensively. This means that they have laws in some form or another, be it by DRO or some other fashion. You break the laws, you suffer the punishment... same as any 'state' anywhere. Of course these laws can also include 'being black' but who cares about that right? They have taxation, they have leaders, they have laws... what else? Well they have a social contract. Before you  at me, listen.Lets say I am a member of this covenant and I have a child. Is the child a member of the covenant upon birth? I think the answer would pretty much have to be yes, which means that I am implicitly agreeing on the child's behalf that the child will obey all the laws and obligations of a covenant (state) member. Do you remember that word? Implicitly. The fact that the child is staying in the covenant means that I am implying in fact that I agree on their behalf that they will do this, the same as I could sign a contract for a movie deal for a child star. When they turn 18, they are now their own person. The Covenant might have an actual literal Social Contract that everyone signs upon reaching majority, but I suspect that it would be no different than our society, that a person reaching majority would be expected to follow the rules, pay their 'voluntary' taxes. Hoppe's private covenants are a State by any other name. They cloak themselves in this idea that everything will be voluntary, but the end result will still be follow the norms set by The King/The council/The majority/The God Emperor or leave. The only difference is in scale and the fact that rather than have power be divided democratically they will have it be done by property. If you have another difference I would be interested in hearing it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:As for the supposed libertarian "support" for Apartheid, there is absolutely no libertarian justification for it whatsoever. Again, you might notice something about this post. I do. You posted four lines of text, and a link to something Murray Rothbard posted and claimed victory. Lets see where you went wrong. First and foremost, you are again missing my point. My point isn't that your flavor of Libertarian philosophy is racist, its that racism pervades the ideology as a whole, and nearly any public libertarian figure you can mention has made some inflamatory and racist statements, or can be easily linked to someone who has made those statements. I am not saying that every single libertarian ever promoted Apartheid or that it is an easy to logic libertarian position. I am saying that major public figures in the libertarian movement actively promoted and encouraged apartheid. These are the people who are molding your ideology. These are the people you are quoting, the people you are citing. That should concern you, because they are the face of your ideology. You aren't racist, but I guarantee you that much of say... the US libertarian party has racist, racist tendencies. Again, these were not 'a few' quotes from some obscure publication. This was a series of major articles in the flagship libertarian publication for the better part of a decade. During the worst of the Apartheid excesses Reason magazine was on the wrong side of the issue and the wrong side of history in direct support of Apartheid. Moreover, Reason magazine also published a 'special issue' in the 1970's filled to the brim with support for holocaust denial. And again, this was not from obscure thinkers, this was from men directly connected with current libertarian darlings such as the Koch brothers, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and others. You are the outlier Jrodefeld. You are not (I hope) racist. The overall Libertarian movement is. Finally, to your link. Others have already covered much of it but I'll still chime in. That article is not as profound or as 'good' as you think it is. As others have already pointed out, Murray Rothbard was wrong. Aparthied didn't end because the white people decided to give the blacks more money after getting massive investment. It ended because of the world became so disgusted with South Africa that we imposed heavy sanctions that along with local pressures made the Status Quo untenable. Murray Rothbard was wrong on the issue, and his attitude is a paternalistic one. If we just keep giving them money eventually the blacks will better themselves and we will have peace was the standard conservative byline of the age, which isn't surprising considering that Murray Rothbard supported The Bell Curve otherwise known as "That book that talks about how black people are genetically dumber than white folk.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No, "modern" economies wouldn't exist in their current state. An economy would exist and it would look quite different than the one we currently have. Human prosperity is likely to be considerably higher because so much of the productive capacity of the populace would not be squandered on State bureaucracy and regulatory overhead. We would not suffer from inflation and paper money, the time preference of society would be low and thus we would be more future oriented. Also everyone would have unicorns. You are aware that the government, with the exception of wasteful spending such as on things like the military has a net positive effect correct? State bureaucracy is no worse than corporate bureaucracy or any other form of private investment on a large scale. Meanwhile programs like Social Security raise millions of people out of poverty. 66% of the elderly used to live in abject poverty prior to the SSA, now that number is I believe in the single digits or low tens.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I believe that human rights and property rights are one and the same. Your question is too vague to give a definitive answer. In what way would the preservation of justly acquired property cause harm to human life? I just so happen to have that! Refusing Cancer treatment to a sick person based on the ability to pay. In the US 63,000 people die annually due to inability to pay for medical care. These are people who have in some cases easily solvable issues such as dental abscesses that could be solved by at $10 bottle of antibiotics. They also include cases such as people who are unable to pay for lifesaving Cancer treatments that would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you believe that these people have the right to live even if it costs someone else their property. To be specific, do you believe a poor homeless man should be allowed to steal a bottle of Clindamycin to keep himself from dying of an easily preventable disease. Now I want to be clear about this, because your previous answer puts you in a precarious position and I don't wanna be all 'gotcha'. If you say yes then you are arguing one of two things: - That people can and should violate the Non-Aggression Principle in some circumstances. This means that the Non-Aggression Principle is not inviolate or universal. You are arguing in favor of moral relativism, that there are exceptions to your rule. If you believe he 'should' do this, then you are of the belief that it is a moral act. or - That this person is taking a clearly immoral act. If you truly believe that this is an immoral act then it is completely without merit, and any argument that the person responsible does not deserve to be punished to the full extent of the 'law' is hypocritical of you. Frankly you should not be supporting his taking the pills since you view him doing so to be morally wrong. Caros fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes, stealing the drugs would constitute an act of aggression. The fact that I would do the same in his position does not make me a hypocrite, nor does it make the non aggression principle invalid. Rather, it illustrates that desperate people without choices resort to whatever is necessary to maintain their life, even resorting to acts of aggression. Any reasonable system of justice would take into account these extenuating circumstances while still not excusing the violation of private property rights. So you're going with option B. You are arguing that it is an inherently immoral act to steal from someone even to preserve your own life, but that you would, and you expect that anyone would in fact take that immoral action. Morality is the distinction between what is wrong and what is right, and you are arguing that everyone would take the immoral action. How can that action be immoral when even you agree that it is the best of two bad choices? Do you not see anything wrong with that? The idea that your ideology defines as immoral the choice that any sane person would make? Why is this aggression 'okay' in your eyes but other Aggression is not. You argued in your previous post that you believe society would look down on anyone who chose to prosecute someone for this aggression, but why should they? It is naked aggression, it is theft through and through. What is the difference between a person who steals to continue to live, and one who does so to satisfy a want, or simply due to boredom. If I steal a $10 bottle of wine would you also assume that people would look down on someone who chose to prosecute me? I suspect not, but why? I know my answer, because morals are a human construction and are thus relative. The same action taken in different circumstances has different moral implications. Stealing to save your life is different than stealing for fun, and we treat it differently. I have no difficulty resolving this because it is obvious. You should have difficulty resolving this because your Non-Aggression Principle should be absolute. If you believe that someone should be forgiven for stealing in this instance, or that their punishment should be less severe... why? Morally there is no difference, they both agressed against another person for an item of the same value, if your belief is universal their punishment should be identical.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The law has to be followed to the letter. That's the point of the law. Exceptional circumstances sure, like with slavery and the fugitive slave act, but you are handwaving away an enormous systemic problem with your theory. A judge can't decide to simply stop enforcing the law by not sentencing people This isn't true at all. Judges can and do accept mitigating circumstances on a regular basis. His problem is that Jrodefeld doesn't believe in moral relativism, which should mean that it doesn't matter the circumstances each violation should be just as bad as any other, because they are all violations of the same overriding moral.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:That requires quite the mental gymnastics, not to mention creatively redefining your entire vocabulary to hide the fact that you are selectively all for initiation of violence under some sort of facade of pacifism. Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Just because one believes in the non-aggression principle does not mean that equal acts of aggression have the same moral character. I agree completely when you say that "The same action taken in different circumstances has different moral implications". I don't think this contradicts libertarian theory one bit. I have made no such assertion. I understand that in the society we have, we have property rights. These rights are not some immutable law of nature but a constructed agreement between a society of people. We have property rights because everyone agrees on what belongs to one another and how to determine that. These 'edge cases' are entirely the point because you have argued from the start of this thread and in many others that the non-agression principle is a universal, natural law. You have made the argument that it is not a subjective fact but an objective one, one that can be observed. Breaking the non-aggression principle must always be an immoral act, because if it is not an immoral act then we have entered into the realm of subjective morality and nothing you are talking about makes sense. It seems to me that your entire argument is predicated on the fact that this is Axiomic, that it is always true, and now you're trying to evade the uncomfortable fact that even you have problems with it being always true. Libertarianism is influenced by morality of course. I said that committing aggression is unjustified and that moral laws should be universal. However, the question that libertarians ponder is referred to as punishment theory. If a person is trespassing against you, are you within your rights to use proportional force against them? When can force be used? quote:Do you see how this is quite a different question from the issue of whether or not it is morally justified, in an extenuating circumstance, for you to steal food or water to prevent starvation? Or whether ethics and spiritual compassion should instruct a property owner to share his food with a hungry man or the owner of an island allow the shipwrecked people onto his private island. The point is that all these individuals own themselves and the property they legitimately acquire. That means that they should be the ones who have the final say over the scarce resources that are called "property". People can use their property in ways that might be, in the abstract, immoral while still not committing aggression against the person or property of another. The point is that punishment theory says that we cannot justify using force against such a person for exercising his natural right of jurisdiction over his physical body and private property. Wait... so non-aggression is not the sole moral discussion in your society now? You actually believe that things can be more or less moral dependant on extenuating circumstances? Congratulations Jrodefeld, you believe in moral relativism. And if you believe that things can be more or less 'good' or 'bad' depending on circumstances why are you unwilling to apply that to aggression. In your example above you note that 'technically' the man is committing aggression against the person by trespassing on his island, but that the land owner would be comitting further aggression by forcing him back into the water (or in a better example, not helping him into a boat). Does that not prove to you that sometimes aggression can, in fact, be justified? It's why we use these examples, to point out the absurdity that there are instances where 'aggression' such as climbing into a boat rather than drowning is preferable, and if it is preferable then you cannot base your entire philosophy off the idea that it is NEVER preferable. quote:In the event that a person uses his or her property in a way that is considered "bad" by society we can use nonviolent means of ostracism, speaking out against him, boycotting his business and so forth. If someone is known to have pressed charges against a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread, we can simultaneously affirm his right to that property and to press charges while at the same time condemning him for his callousness and lack of compassion. There are seven billion people in the world. Ostracism does not work. As a real world example of this take Karla Homolka. She is a woman who was directly involved and almost certainly killed at least one of three teenage girls along with her boyfriend. One of those was her sister. Because she made a plea bargain she served twelve years in jail and is now living in Guadeloupe, by all accounts having three children. If you do something lovely in a world with seven billion people, you move. It might be a pain in the rear end but don't pretend for a moment that causing the death of someone through action will ruin someone's life. It might not even make the evening news. quote:But returning to the issue of ethics for a moment. I stated that an ethical principle that we agree to must be universalizable for all members of society who are faced with similar circumstances. What you are attempting to do is to argue that the libertarian standard of self ownership and private property determining who can use defensive violence is flawed. You and others have been saying that human life is worth more than private property and thus in some cases a person would be justified in committing aggression against the private property of someone else. In the example of healthcare, you argued that a sick man is justified in stealing a drug that could save his life if he cannot afford to pay for them. Also, by implication you are saying that society can therefore compel doctors to treat sick people because "human life trumps property rights". The entire socialist system can be justified using this sort of logic. You know, I am really glad you asked this question because it isn't a hard one for me despite what you think. Human life is more important than property, pretty much full stop. My posts might be a little bouncy here since you're all over the place but bare with me. quote:But if, as FDR said, a "necessitous man is not free" and this need justifies aggression against private property, this new standard of morality should also apply equally to everyone in society. If the State, under your system of ethics, is permitted to expropriate the rich in order to fund healthcare for the poor, among many other welfare programs and well intentioned public services, why can I not cut out the middle man and steal from my neighbor directly, providing the money I stole will go to a pressing need? The simple answer? Because it is inefficient and leads to far more problems than it solves. We created social programs because we acknowledge these problems and bad choices will exist, and we keep these things as crimes because stealing pills, or food or what have you is a bad choice that can lead to dangerous outcomes. We attempt to alleviate the problem while acknowledging it exists. In fact the reason that we have many of these programs is to solve your very question. One of the reasons we have, for example, unemployment insurance is because when people get poor and hungry and desperate they start having to make lovely choices. They start having to steal, or to beg, or to attack other people. Also the government is not stealing money. I've asked you rather repeatedly to cut that poo poo out because it is disingenuous. Seriously, stop it. quote:Let's say I was quite poor and a family member needed treatment for a medical condition. Why could I not rob my rich neighbor directly and then take care of my sick family member with the money? Because, after all, human life trumps private property? If you were in Canada, The United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa... loving Iraq or any other place than the USA with its free market healthcare you would not need to rob anyone, because we acknowledge healthcare as a human right and act accordingly. quote:Why should I have to do this through the political process rather than on my own? I'm sure you would concede that the State shouldn't be taking peoples money in taxes and spending that money on frivolous things. They shouldn't be enriching corporations or politicians and things of that sort. But, according to leftist principles, it is perfectly legitimate to redistribute wealth to fund services for those that really need it, where there is a pressing social and human need. I don't concede jack poo poo, and you'd get laughed out of a high school level debate for that rear end in a top hat tactic. Seriously, stop it. And yes, it is perfectly okay to redistribute funds to the people who need it most, particularly since the people who typically have the money have gained it by exploiting the people who need it. Capitalism 101. quote:By that ethical standard then, anyone should be permitted to steal directly from their richer neighbor provided the money goes to a "good cause" or to a less well off person who needs food, clothing, shelter, medical care or whatever. Again, no. We have as a society empowered the government to do things that individual citizens cannot. The redistribution of wealth is one of those things, just as maintaining markets, providing health care, paving roads and so forth. Stealing from someone invokes a host of risks and dangers to both parties which is one of the myriad reasons we don't allow it. Also again, cut it with the stealing poo poo. I'm going to include that every time I see it until you realize that no one is buying your bullshit rephrasing of things. Remember, you aren't in a libertarian circle jerk, you are talking to people who don't agree with you. quote:If this redistribution is moral in principle, there should be no reason why only the agents of the State are to be permitted to expropriate people in this manner. Why are politicians and IRS agents permitted to commit aggression against private property but other citizens are not? Where is the logic in that? Because we don't believe in your non-aggression principle basically. The vast majority of people believe in a social contract, in our case a democratic one wherein we can invest specific rights and responsibilities to others that individual citizens do not have. We do this by consensus. People agree that say... the government can tax us, and thus the government can tax us. This is no different from how paying for things would work in Hans Hermann Hoppe's private covenants save perhaps that there it would be slightly more explicit. Again, we do not believe that government is some 'other'. The government is a representation of the wills and desires of the people. It is run by the people (in democratic places anyways) and we can have it do whatever the hell we want. It is an upscale version of when I moved two months ago and we all listened to my former roommate tell us where to go and what to put where. quote:Of course if you universalize a socialist ethic, you end up with chaos and disaster (greater even than what comes about from a socialist State). If everyone can steal from everyone legally, even only in the name of a "good cause", then all property rights break down, no one can save or produce for fear of immediate theft and we regress to a primitive existence quite rapidly. See, here is the difference between your world view and mine. We can hypothesize about poo poo that might happen in yours because yours isn't real. Yours has never been real, and likely will never be real because almost no one who isn't an american white male between the ages of 18 and 55 actually believes in it at all. This is because its based off a view that is equal parts racism, bootstraps and wishful thinking. Your example doesn't work because our world doesn't work like that. We are not hard pressed with wave after wave of charitable theft because as a society we have agreed to a certain way of doing things. A social contract if you will. quote:Socialist States need to maintain a monopoly. They require some semblance of private property and a market economy to produce the wealth that they then can expropriate. Only they can expropriate and decide how this tax money is redistributed. They are we. quote:I rational ethic should be universalizable. Punishment theory states that the person who has the jurisdiction over the use of a scarce resource, either his body or external property, can use force against a person who commits aggression against that property. That doesn't mean he should, as you could argue in the case of a starving person stealing a bit of food, but given his appropriation and jurisdiction over a scarce resource, he has that right. Well first off I don't attempt to universalize socialist ethics because universalized ethics because I am not autistic. Morals and ethics are an illusion, like society and money that exist solely based on the consensus between different groups of human beings. To think that there is some universal 'ethics' out there that is not based off of a deity is frankly silly. To the rest of it, I don't agree with you that government commits act of aggression against citizens constantly, nor that citizens are without recourse in the instances where the government does impact their lives. Most people here I imagine disagree with your premise entirely and repeating it for the upteenth time says nothing other than that you are doggedly persistent.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The title of that article "Vacant Houses Outnumber Homeless People in U.S." tells you something doesn't it? It might surprise you, but there is a libertarian argument to be made that homeless people should squat in these unused homes that are sitting vacant. The reason is simple. The housing bubble was not a market phenomenon. The Federal Reserve and government policy created an over-investment in housing, far exceeding market demand. Plus the encouragement by the State for lenders to make risky loans and all the funneling of expropriated taxpayer money into this sector of the economy combine to render the legitimacy of the property titles to these homes claimed by the Banks rather suspect. First, gently caress YOU, gently caress YOU, gently caress YOU! Sorry. Had to get that out of my system. What you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act, and what you aren't saying is that no one with any knowledge of the 2008 housing crisis believes even slightly that the crisis was caused in any meaningful way by the CRA. An exaustive study by the University of Florida had this as its end quote: quote:Its telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. Thats because CRA didnt bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA or any federal regulator. Law didnt make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness. The CRA had negligable impact on the financial crisis because the issue at its heart wasn't "Oh we are being forced to lend to poor people". The banks literally could not find enough people to give their garbage loans to, so they started throwing them at anyone with a pulse, and they were more than happy to do that. Giving loans to poor people was not the cause of this crisis, terrible financial management and an utter lack of regulation was the cause. Also, the issue with the legitimacy of titles has absolutely nothing to do with the loans or the government, and everything to do with banks being so negligent in their processing of these loans (since they planned to sell them) that they did not bother with any sort of proper paperwork that was required. They needed to sell them and sell them quickly to keep raking in the cash, so they skimped on little things like title transfers. This is hardly surprising considering they also couldn't be bothered to do something as simple as check income. Stop saying "expropriate". You're basically just saying 'steal' but trying to classy it up and/or make yourself seem smarter. You are failing at both. quote:The very fact that there are more vacant houses than homeless just serves to illustrate how out of control that housing bubble is. But how can you blame this on libertarianism? Libertarian monetary policy would never have permitted the creation of an artificial bubble like this in the first place. The artificially high housing prices would not exist and the price of homes would drop under a libertarian society, there would not be an overproduction of houses and supply would meet demand on the market. These problems you are referencing would simply not exist in a libertarian free market economy. You are correct in that the problems would not exist because a libertarian market economy would not exist. So you've got me there! quote:In a related note, Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe have even advocated for embracing the concept of syndicalism to transfer "public", State owned property to private hands. The idea is that since it can be difficult or impossible to determine who homesteaded the land before the State stole it originally, the next best way to privatize this land is to give it to those who most recently worked on that land. Therefore, the factory to the factory workers, the farm to the farmers, the government facilities to the government workers, and so forth. A similar argument could be made about the excess houses from the housing bubble that only exist due to State interference in the market. Therefore a coherent argument could be made that these homeless people should be permitted to "squat" in these homes, thereby homesteading these properties and justly acquiring them. The State didn't steal land from anyone except the Native Americans in any significant amounts and it is incredibly disingenuous to suggest that they did so. Also you are aware that the government owns very few of these homes, so this entire paragraph is pointless unless you are suggesting that the government 'expropriate' the houses from the banks to give to poor people, in which case, gently caress and/or yes. quote:This concept of syndicalism is only applicable to State-owned "public" property, or property that, like the extra homes built during the housing boom, were so intertwined with State funding and intervention that the supposed private property titles are suspect or invalid. Okay, so you as a libertarian are in favor of the government seizing millions of homes from private banks and giving them to citizens to live in? Did you have a loving stroke or something?  Also despite what Hans Hermann Hoppe says, its really easy to trace title back on these. If you think the bank shouldn't own them, then why not the people before them, or before them? Is it just too hard? Have you actually rationally thought about what it would do to bank balances and the US economy if suddenly these banks lost probably a trillion dollars in 'assets'? A Rambling Vagrant posted:Keep going guys; at this rate it's looking like Jrod will, before the end of page 12, write a post arguing that the only way to ensure a truly capitalist society in the spirit of Herms "Triple H" Hoppe is for the workers to seize the means of production through Glorious People's Revolution. Seriously, what in the actual gently caress? I mean its a retarded idea on its face due to the whole 'collapse our economy without a bank bailout to go with it', but that is just a blatantly socialist idea. He's going full Lolita-Sama and arguing the US government should just Eminent Domain those homes into the hands of the homeless. Caros fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is NOT what he said. Did you read the previous post I made where I quoted from Stephen Kinsella about this slander and misrepresentation of Hoppe's position? Did you read the post where I replied and pointed out Hoppe's racist stance on immigration into Europe and the USA and how it should really only be for white people? Because it isn't one quote taken out of context. It is a pattern of behaviour that includes his belief that segregation and tribalism are good things, something which is the hallmark of someone who is racist. Did you ignore the part of his post where he talked about the totalitarian streak Hoppe has since he is famously known for supporting monarchy as a more preferable form of government than democracy? Did you miss the part that Hoppe considered Murray Rothbard his greatest teacher and "master" While Rothbard himself is famous for having numerous racist opinions such as support for the bell curve, a book that hypothesized that blacks were genetically dumped than white people? Or that Rothbard is connected to other racists such as Lew Rockwell? Seriously, in libertarian circles there is a game I like to play called six degrees of separation from a white supremacist. I think the longest I've seen was Mises himself who is one of the few austian/an cap thinkers I do not say is racist. I think it took four with him.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:the dude thinks undesirables should be rounded up in camps and/or exterminated, your ideology being inspired by him is reason enough not to engage you on any kind of serious level Not true. Hoppe just wants the blacks/homos/druids kept away from him personally so everyone can live in their own homogeneous tribe of like minded people ruled by the natural social elites. That isn't much better, but I honestly don't think hoppe wants to kill undesirables. He wants them segregated so they will eventually collapse under their own failure of being inferior.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course greed exists. If greed is not backed up by initiatory aggression, I don't see how it can harm me. In fact the market economy harnesses greed in a way where the greedy are forced to serve the needs of the consumers through competing for voluntarily paying customers. Whether they are greedy or not, the successful entrepreneur adds value to others and enriches society. How do you explain the forty three books and busts that occurred during the free banking period during which the United states did not have a central bank? Are they not 'real' booms and busts?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Thank you SedanChair. I have a lot of poo poo to do today since I am moving on Tuesday and I really didn't want to let his assertion that none of those people were racist simply hang there unopposed. I do have to do this one before he comes back however.quote:I read your quotes of Hoppe and in fact I read them in their proper context and you are making a gigantic leap, needed to support your accusation of racism, that Hoppe really is motivated to simply keep out non-white immigrants. I took his comments about an immigration policy focusing on achievement, education and so forth likely favoring those of European decent to be an illustration of the higher levels of prosperity in European countries, which would mean that those immigrating from those countries would be more educated, more skilled, and less prone to crime. Not because of their race but because Latino immigrants usually are emigrating from very impoverished nations with a lot of violence, little education and higher crime rates. JRodefeld, does it matter whether he is motivated to keep out non-white immigrants, or whether that is simply the end result? This is Hoppe's proposed system for dealing with immigration in the US in the here and now, and the end result of it is putting up a sign that even he agrees means 'whites only'. Note that it isn't just intellegence. He also believes that any immigrants should have a "Compatible system of values" and a certain "Character structure" that would also serve to preclude immigrants from other places. What sort of system of values do you think he means by this? What sort of "Character Structure" do you think Hoppe is talking about. If Hoppe had his way, all or nearly all legal immigration into the united states would come from Western European countries and nowhere else. This is because Hans Hermann Hoppe favors homogenous societies over heterogenius societies. His stated goal in this instance would be to change US immagration policy to only allow in others who are 'like us'. With respect, that is a hosed up and pretty racist policy idea. To hell with give us your poor, your tired, your huddle masses yearning to breath free. Give us your skilled, your culturally similar and your (probably) christian. quote:Since Hans Hoppe is a libertarian, he would not be making any determination of who immigrates and who doesn't. A true racist would be advocating some sort of authoritarian aggression to keep society white and segregated. Hans is merely affirming the right of every person to associate and disassociate with whoever they want. I'm sorry JRodefeld, but that is exactly what he is doing. Hans Hermann Hoppe's solution is for democratically elected rulers to "act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility." His solution is for democratic leaders to take an authoritarian control of the immigration system and to reform it in such a way that it permits primarily whites. The only thing he hasn't talked about there is segregation, and in instances where you find 'preference' to one race in a society you will inevitably find segregation. Stop defending Hans Hermann Hoppe. The man is a racist and you really do have to know this by now. You can acknowledge that he is wrongheaded in his views without believing that libertarianism is a failure, but don't for a moment pretend to us, or to yourself that you really can't see the fact that he is a racist who is surrounded by other racists. quote:Do you concede that the oft quote passage about the covenant "physically removing" those that threatened the values of that community is incredibly distorted and misleading? Do you understand that, in its property context and given the further context provided by Kinsella, that quote is NOT an example of racism or homophobia or any other sort of bigotry? No, I do not. I don't because other study of Hoppe's works have shown that in his ideal society there would pretty much only be white people. If you asked Hans Hermann Hoppe what sort of libertarian Covenant he would want to live in, and you caught him on a day where he answered honestly, it would probably be something along the lines of his immigration policy, one where he shares language, skills, 'character' and cultural values with those around him. It would be one where it is primarily white people. Despite the hyperbole of some of the less informed posters in this thread, Hans Hermann Hoppe hasn't called for the murder of people of other races. He believes in tribalism and he simply wants to be able to live within his (white) tribe. That does not, however, make him any less of a racist for wanting to avoid being near blacks, or homos or druids. quote:These other quotes you dug up are not examples of bigotry either as I have clearly demonstrated. You haven't demonstrated poo poo. Here, let me remind you. quote:([W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. quote:Also in 1992, Paul wrote, Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions. Those are two quotes from Ron Paul. How have you demonstrated that Ron Paul is not a racist. Those aren't code words by the way, that is Ron Paul saying its okay to be afraid of black men. That is Ron Paul saying 95% of black people have bad political opinions. What about his opposition to the civil rights act? What about the fact that he was the only member of congress to oppose Rosa Parks receiving a national medal for what she did. How do you explain that away as 'not racist'. You know what, I'm just going to quote myself because you haven't demonstrated an answer to any of this. quote:Rand Paul - Second verse same as the first. Opposition to the civil rights act, hired a man who was previously known as the 'Southern Avenger', a pretty blatantly neo-confederate who was a chairmen of the 'league of the south'. I can go on but this is too easy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to speak to the "racist" accusation once more. Jesus gently caress. I have no time to answer you in full right now as I am getting glazes from my wife but did you seriously just use the "Donald sterling made them millionaires " line without irony? Donald Sterling owned the team. That is it. Those players made themselves successful and made HIM rich in the process you contemptable peice of garbage. I'll deal with this when I get home.. gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Richer - reminder that Sterling made a significant chunk of his fortune off of being a slumlord. I actually didn't know that I knew he was wealthy before. Thank you for the correction. Donald sterling basically had a pile of money and decided to buy a sports team, as I understand it that is mostly where his influence ended in the actual management of the team. They did all the work and he got progressively more wealthy. It's the perfect example of capitalism being garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:NBA owners have nothing to do with the salaries that professional basketball players make? Sure it is the players who have to play but it is not the physical effort that makes them worth the money they earn. It is the fact that owners, executives, television channels and the combined sports economy advertise the sport, get people to pay for tickets in the arenas, get people to pay for cable and satellite sports packages like NBA League Pass and so on. I insult you because you are humorous and support an economic and philosophical system that I believe would cause untold human suffering. I insult you because when I told you why I stopped being a libertarian due to a painful story involving the death of a personal friend you talked down to me like I was a child. I have very little respect for you because you consistantly come onto the forums that I consider my community and declare your support for libertarian thought in an incredibly disingenuous fashion and you are unwilling to rexamine your ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And I had already listed a great many more libertarians who have influenced me, including Stefan Molyneux, Scott Horton, Gary Chartier, Henry Hazlitt, Leonard Reed, Robert Nozick, Sheldon Richman, Jacob Hornberger, Frederic Bastiat and Lysander Spooner. JRod. I for one am actually happy to move the topic beyond the racist tendencies of your philosophers. We've reached the point where everything has been said that can be said on the matter. No one reading this thread will be convinced by your non-arguments, regarding this issue, but the thread is becoming a bit of a circle jerk. In fairness of actually giving you a new topic to stick your foot in I'm actually going to offer you several options below as to what I think would be a good source of future discussion. you can pick from them if you want, or you can try something else, I'm just going to offer them to you. However, before that I do want to touch on one teeny, tiny little thing. Stefan Molyneux. I actually agree with you that a lot of those libertarians aren't especially racist, but that was never the point that every libertarian was a racist. I never accused you of being racist either to my knowledge, and if I did I apologize. What I said was that much of the libertarian school of thought in the united states, and the visible libertarian thinkers were racists I would point out that very few of them actually go as far on the spectrum as the An Cap craziness that you espouse. In fact, of the ones that I recognize I know that Gary Chartier is actually a left anarchist who would probably laugh you out of the room the same as any of us. However, if you are seriously trying to say that I can't find traces of controversial racial statements by Stephan Molyneux!? You'd be mostly right. All I could find was this, this and this. Now to be fair, I only know for a fact that in one of those videos he excuses the murder of a child because that child was black. I'm also not sure which one since it has been a while since I last watched them and I just ate a big snack that I'd prefer not to vomit up in rage. Seriously, in one of those videos he argues that black men have an obligation not to wear hoodies because white people might be afraid of them. I'm not even making GBS threads you. Now this is outside of the topic we were discussing, but they don't all have to be racists do they? Sometimes good old misogyny is the answer. To be specific, Stephan Molyneux was one of the keynote speakers at the first ever A Voice for Men Men's Rights Advocate's conference. This is because in the last year or so he has proven himself to be rabidly anti-women (he says anti-feminist with such video gems as: The Friend Zone: A Sex Free Life Sentence Feminist Hypocrisy Exposed! - A Conversation with Paul Elam The Truth About Domestic Violence - You'll Never Believe... (And I don't!) Not All Women Are Like That! Estrogen Based Parasites Critisim - Rebutted! (He calls women that a lot) And believe me I can go on. I've only gone back as far as May and only picked out the ones with revolting titles. Any video he does on Men's Rights or Feminism is disgusting, but these say my point without even needing for you to watch them. Stefan Molyneux is a huckster cult leader, undoubtedly misogynistic and likely a racist on top of it. That said I'd actually prefer you don't reply to this part of my post unless you really, really want to. I just want to make sure you know that he is this way, beyond that I don't see much point in arguing it unless you need to. Aaaaanyways. So here are my suggested topics for when you get back and want to kick the ball around some more: How you became a libertarian - You never actually told us this story last time due to your computer crash and I'm still deathly curious. We actually started making up fanfiction about it, but Xylo sent the thread to the Gas Chamber rather than the goldmine so we can't get it back. Justice in a Libertarian Society - We've touched on this in this thread already but I know a lot of people are interested. Can you give us a rundown of how you believe a libertarian society would work when it comes to a justice system. I understand that you are talking big picture stuff, and you aren't the guy designing this so its hard to say, but if it were Jrodefeldland, how would you set it up. What is your ideal justice system. Transition - How do you see the transition from our current society to a libertarian society functioning. Again I know its focusing a little more, but how do we switch from government roads to private ones. How do we divide assets and determine who gets what. How do people who are systemically disadvantaged deal with the transition, such as the homeless. What if anything are you suggesting we do about income disparity based on historical crime... basically do you have any way of leveling the playing field so that people aren't hosed from the starting line. Do you care if people ARE hosed from the starting line. This Post - I think a lot of people missed this one since it was late, but can you explain how it is consistent with libertarian ethics to take millions of homes from bankers and give them to homeless people. I think the thread would actually agree with you on this one. Reason Magazine - On an early page of this thread you said "I don't know of Reason magazine and those articles you mention. So they had an article about Holocaust denial? And one that you characterize as "Pro apartheid"? I'd have to see a lot more specifics before I condemn them as racists." when I was talking about Reason Magazine's anti-semetic comments. Another poster however, brought this up from your post history. quote:Avoid these political media outlets: Why were you recommending a magazine, only to blatently lie in thread and pretend that you did not know about it. Or did you recommend it without reading it. Or was it all just a weird bit of grammar failure that you didn't know of the articles I was mentioning? I hope you address one, or all of these topics, since I'm sure your answers will be illuminating. Caros fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:*man with fake nose and glasses comes into room* I think we've argued before... but as another poster says, you're alright SedanChair. You're alright.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:I'm asking a simple question. Would SA be better if it was directly run by government? Probably not. I don't think anyone in this thread thinks that there is no place for private business. Would SA be better if it was non-existent because DARPA didn't pay for massive tests that culminated in the internet? Or if government didn't pay for massive infrastructure spending to bring internet service to much of the country? Or if the government didn't regulate the internet to preserve net neutrality and prevent companies from abusing their power to create monopolies on content?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:Government no longer stealing from them would be a start. Food price floors and various tariffs make food much more expensive and unhealthy, which leads to even more expensive health issues. Inflation takes away poor people's purchasing power, patent and copyright prevent lower cost alternatives to technology. Government steals the loaf of bread and then gives back the crumbs. It makes me sick. Taxation is not theft you ignorant shitlord.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
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. Pretty sure you're the only one, yes. SA used to have a lot of libertarians is my understanding, but most of them grew up and became leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not going to respond to the stuff you said about Molyneux right now. I don't want to get sucked into that diversion. quote:Many have asked about the feasibility of competing defense agencies and private dispute resolution agencies. You seem to think that we need a centralized monopolistic authority to provide "the law". I think this is a very dangerous concept that, as history has proven, is rife with abuse. I know some of you hate when I do this, but I am going to quote from Stefan Molyneux on this subject. I don't always agree with Molyneux but in this instance I think his insights are valuable. This isn't the final word, but I think it offers plenty of food for thought: Fair enough. But I will say that I suggest you stop using sources like him if you don't want to get into derails. Sourcing Stephan Molyneux will inevitably lead to people looking into him, and the moment they do they are going to start asking questions as to how you can support a blatant, unapologetic misogynist. As to how much we hate him? I hate Mr. Molyneux as much as he seems to hate women. Take that as you will. quote:I'll say that I do know about Reason Magazine. They are not my favorites to say the least. I am not particularly a fan of any of the Koch funded libertarian outlets. Some of the Reason people do good work but I don't read them usually. It was a "weird bit of grammer failure". I know Reason Magazine. I don't know about the "Pro apartheid" or holocaust denial articles that were published in the 1970s. That is what I meant to say. I wasn't born when these articles were published. It may be true that they gave a platform to some hateful people. I don't think its fair to judge Reason magazine today for some stupid article they published forty years ago though. Everyone makes mistakes, I just wanted to be clear on whether it was a mistake. Glad to hear it was. And it is entirely fair to judge Reason magazine on this issue. They have been presented with the fact that they did this, and do you know what their response was? It was a lot like yours on Hoppe actually. Rather than just admitting that yeah, they published a special issue on anti-semitism, they tried to argue and pretend and make excuses for what they did. They did this because many of the same people who wrote that issue are still on their board or involved in other forms of editorial control. Reason is still staffed by many of the same people who thought that a Holocaust denial, pro-apartheid stance was the way to take. Much like the libertarian party writ large. quote:I already wrote two posts about criminal justice but I'd rather talk about Gary Chartier for a minute. Yes, I think he could be considered a "left" libertarian, but I've read his work and our views are not that far apart. He calls himself an anarchist and he wrote a recent book called "The Conscience of an Anarchist". He did indeed abandon libertarianism to join the left proper for a decade or so but he is one of us again and he does use that experience to sell libertarian ideas to those on the left. The fact that libertarians compliment him does not mean anything to me considering that earlier in the thread you talked about a socialist who's ideas you associate yourself with despite all logic in it. Gary Chartier is an anarchist, but not one who believes in your view on say... property rights for example. Or self ownership. Or the Non-Aggression Principle. If he doesn't agree with you on these basic concepts then using him as an example of someone prominent in your ideology is sort of... wrong. Now on to my questions. You've posted a DRO example from Stefan Molyneux, so allow me to post one back. You've probably seen it before in the last thread at least: quote:After Lew was kind enough to publish The Stateless Society, I received many emails asking the same question: how can violent criminals be dealt with in the absence of a centralized government? Define voluntary for me Jrod, and explain what the difference between "you must pay your taxes to live in our society" and "you must pay one of these private entities simply to live." quote:However, DROs as a whole really need to keep track of people who have opted out of the entire DRO system, since those people have clearly signaled their intention to go rogue, to live off the grid, and commit crimes. Or that you are too poor. Keep in mind that you REQUIRE this service to live, and there is no progressive taxation suggested for people who are too poor. quote:What happens then? Remember there is no public property in the stateless society. If you've gone rogue, where are you going to go? You can't take a bus bus companies won't take rogues, because their DRO will require that they take only DRO-covered passengers, in case of injury or altercation. Scan your ID card to get on the bus citizen. What is this 'privacy' garbage you speak of. The DROverlords must know who you are for you to ride this bus. quote:So you have to get off the street. Where do you go? All the local street owners have been notified of your presence, and refuse you entrance. You can't go anywhere without trespassing. You are a pariah. No one will help you, or give you food, or shelter you because if they do, their DRO will boot them or raise their rates, and their name will be entered into a database of people who help rogues. There is literally no place to turn. Your DRO coverage lapsed because of problems with direct deposit? WELCOME TO loving THUNDERDOME BITCHES! Alternately, your DRO coverage has lapsed, so the DRO companies won't deal with you because they don't deal with rogues. Limbo is a bitch. quote:it has probably been voice-encoded or protected in some other manner against unauthorized re-use Literally the only reason we don't have this now is because we don't live in a perfect free market. It has nothing do do with people using old products. Or the cost of voice recognition software in a loving blender. quote:Will there be underground markets? No where would they operate? People need a place to live, cars to rent, clothes to buy, groceries to eat. No DRO means no participation in economic life. The only markets are DRO approved markets. Your garage sale is in violation of our DRO agreement rogue. You are now fair bounty as part of our new program 'Professor Genki's Super Ethical Reality Climax'. quote:But let's say that only the murderous husband planning to kill his wife opted out of his DRO system without telling her. Well, the first thing that his wife's DRO system would do is inform her of her husband's action and the ill intent it may represent and help relocate her if desired. If she decided against relocation, her DRO would promptly drop her, since by deciding to live in close proximity with a rogue man, she was exposing herself to an untenable amount of danger (and so the DRO to a high risk for financial loss!). This right here is pinnacle loving retarded. Ma'am your husband is going to kill you, you need to give up on your entire life and move where we tell you to or we will drop you from coverage and you will die starving and alone in the sewers assuming that no one shoots you for trespassing before then. Yeah, you get the idea. In this suggested world, which by the way is the revised version of what you posted earlier Jrod, lacking DRO coverage is equitable to death. If for any reason you do not have coverage you have no rights. You are subhuman. There will be no homeless people in libertopia because if there were they would starve to death almost instantaneously. So please, give me your review. I'm eager!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
isildur posted:You know, I've never actually read much ancap stuff, on the basis that the whole idea sounded even more awful and absurd than the Objectivism I'd already rejected. The bizzare thing to me is that they don't see it. I guarantee you that Jrodefeld is going to come back and if he says anything on the topic at all its going to be that I'm totally wrong, and that the essay there is not a full throated suggestion of a totalitarian nightmare, because people 'voluntarily' choose to do business with these companies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Would you say my assessment of proportional defensive violence is accurate or not? Why? Doubling down that I'd like to see your answer to it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
So is it fair to say that Jrod probably isn't coming back at this point? I managed to move across province in a couple of days without more than a post from him.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm genuinely curious what he's thinking. Does this all look like self-satisfied masturbation to him? I mean it kind of is but I feel like it compares favorably to the self-satisfied masturbation on the Daily Paul forums. Yeah, I looked him up a while back. He's been at this for half a decade and if it is a troll it will make toblerone triangle look like an amateur. I honestly don't know what I even reply when he posts, save for the trainwreck of it all. I had the same thing with an old friend who has gone full MRA and it really does feel pointless. He isn't going to learn anything unless something big happens, but then again even I wasn't as full on wackjob as he is, so who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Hey Xylo, any chance of a funny mod challenge for Jrod?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The guy in jrod's avatar too. And let's not forget he (jrodefeld, not Rothbard) was just explaining how awful he considered police brutality in the Ferguson thread. Yeah, but its brutality against 'those' people. Not those people.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 17:47
|
|