|
You know what? gently caress everyone in this thread gently caress jrod for being an idiot and gently caress everyone who isn't jrod for picking all of the low-hanging fruit before I could get here I ::QUARK:: OF THE FAMILY ~*~JETS~*~ DID NOT CONSENT TO CREATING JOINDER WITH ALL OF YOU NON-LIBERTARIANS, in any admiralty court of law you guys would each be sentenced to a solid hour of keel-hauling at the very least and you'd probably owe me like a gazillion gold dabloons for TRANSGRESSION AGAINST THIS BERTHED VESSEL e: Seriouspost, jrod, what's your opinion on sovereign citizens? zeal posted:When you sleep your spouse rises, eyes restless beneath their lids, staggers to the computer, and types Okay, everyone except for this guy. You're alright, zeal
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:there's not much point to giving jrod writing tips, he thinks arguments are more convincing by the pound and he copy pastes most of them anyway Cemetary Gator, please don't listen to this punk, I like reading your sound critiques of jrod's loving awful writing style
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
I've seen some libertarians argue that slavery was a voluntary institution of people in tribes allowing their labor to be sold by chieftains and continued allowing their labor to be exploited by plantation owners in exchange for food and shelter. And horrific physical violence I guess
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Wait he actually said this hahahahahahah. No that is a mischaracterization of what jrod said ... Jrod said that war is impossible without fiat money or taxes To be fair, he backpedaled on that and tried to redefine the word "war" to include only modern large-scale conflicts like Vietnam
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, I could say the exact same thing about any one of you. "you will absolutely refuse to retain any facts about history, economics, ethics, or reality in general that isn't convenient for you and your perpetual state of delusional idiocy". You could say that, but you'd be wrong. Every single one of your arguments is engaged with and debunked here, whereas you refuse to engage with arguments to which you have no answer. That's the difference between you and the rest of us; we're willing to reevaluate our beliefs on the basis of evidence, but your beliefs are immutable because they are based on intellectually bankrupt concepts like praxeology.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Instead of given him a wealth of responses to cherry pick from the thread really ought to settle on one particular example and try to force him to talk about it at length. I for one would love to see him actually forced to explain his beliefs about history but it doesn't really matter what the subject is. I'm genuinely curious whether there's some insane Libertarian scholar who came up with a history of the US where slavery, military conquest, public government works and protective tariffs were not central to American industrialization. This was tried, once, in the other thread. That's when jrod chose to leave and then the thread became boring By flooding the thread with responses for him to cherry pick from the thread is merely proving that a free market solution maximizes the entertainment value of a libertarian thread
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Yeah, some cities have ordinances. It's not "Oh, hey, your lawn is looking a little shaggy today," it's more like "the grass is over 12" high, maybe you should mow the lawn." When it's a city ordinance telling you to mow your lawn, that's THE TYRANNY OF THE NANNY STATE. Elected/appointed officials telling me what I can and cannot do with my property? No thanks, I prefer to remain free When it's Homeowner's Association CC&Rs telling you to mow your lawn, that's just the free market at work. You entered into a binding agreement to follow the will of the elected/appointed officials on your HOA board Conservatism is nothing if not hypocritical. I wonder if we could get a bunch of would-be conservatives on-board with a bunch of liberal policies and taxation if we just had people sign something before graduating high school or somesuch. "If I choose to join society then I agree to be bound by its rules, otherwise I'm free to leave and go live somewhere else" or something like that QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No it's not. It is moral for YOU to give your apple to the person who is starving. And let's be real here. There is no shortage of people who will gladly help people who don't have enough to eat. The people on this planet who have real food shortages are those who live in the third world, usually under repressive dictators far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism. 1) What do you think that the Soviet Union was trying to do by spreading communism? 2) The endgame of a world government that sends resources where they're most needed is almost something that goes without saying; yes, that is a desirable goal of progressiveness in general, I would think. But this can occur without a "drastic reduction in our standard of living", something that you've assumed must happen in order for those with the most give to those with the least. That conclusion is bullshit, there are a million reasons that I can point to that prove that that's bullshit, but I'm not going to bother because you wouldn't listen anyway
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Jesus Christ. I actually figured that most of you would say "well, of course world government would be bad" and make up some excuse as to why your ideology doesn't logically lead to that place. But instead you embrace it as a good and desirable thing. It's not and shouldn't be the government's responsibility to make people materially equal in all ways you nincompoop, it's to make sure that people at least have their basic needs met and to fund projects that are in the common best interest. Both of these goals can be accomplished on a worldwide scale without a significant drop in prosperity for Western nations. A government should exist to make up for the more serious shortcomings of a laissez-faire free market, basically, and there are many such shortcomings. But way to go constructing a conclusion that wasn't supported by anything that I wrote.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It's the idea that a government that's too big will be rife with corruption, abuse, and will abuse it's citizens which it claims to protect and represent. This is true of any organization, not just governments. Arguably, it's even more true for non-government organizations. So if you're in favor of breaking up large governments, are you also in favor of breaking up large corporations? My opinion is that groups can't be corrupt. People can be corrupt, and large groups are more likely to contain corrupt people in positions where they can do harm, but there are also a number of mitigating steps that can be implemented to reduce the effect that corrupt people have on the health of an organization. Ergo it's not the size of an organization that actually matters
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
No, it's not. Not in the way that we're talking about, anyway It's pretty similar to "groups can be corrupted". But that doesn't mean that the group caused individuals to become corrupt, but rather it allowed individuals to be corrupt. The argument that all governments are corrupt by default is totally false and implies that a group can be more corrupt depending on what you choose to name it (government, business, etc). But that's obviously bogus, and it's part of what makes libertarians so frustrating to talk to; they take bogus conclusions like this as being true by default and then build a philosophy on those beliefs. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Unless you count abuse of civil forfeiture as corruption (you should). Civil forfeiture is a widespread problem, but I suspect that the percentage of police officers that are actually involved in civil forfeiture is relatively small
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
^^ a generation of chemtrails and water fluoridation has resulted in a polarized the political climate, obviouslyToxicSlurpee posted:The most lolbertarian people I've ever met are absolutely always fat, middle-aged white guys that had their lives literally handed to them for free that think they're being held back by the system and they succeeded, why can't others? Wasn't John Galt like the ultimate "ideas guy" though? He basically asks a bunch of people to strike against society and then rubes them into creating Galt's Gulch. The only thing that he actually creates is a magic infinite energy machine, which he probably didn't even build himself (he had the resources of a former employer at his disposal)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It's an over-simplification, because nothing is so simple. But if I were to argue why the polarization has occurred now and not before, I would say it's the addition of several factors, including an after-effect of the Cold War (the polarizing of Us vs. the Commies) This should have happened during the Cold War, not decades later. Or are you saying that it's the lack of a clear enemy like the communists that has resulted in increased polarization? That's still wrong, because you have other decades throughout the 20th and 19th century where there was no sign of the crazy polarization that we have today quote:, the proliferation of media and mass media such as the cable networks, ending of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of talk radio, and the introduction of the internet which allows people to communicate in echo chambers without having to deal with the opposition. Our world is becoming "smaller" thanks to communication, but it allows us selective communication - so we are able to go about our daily lives without having our ideas challenged or debated. Also, more and more, we're becoming walled off from our neighbors, so there's less community and that leads to insularity and distrust, and we become more and more jealous about who we associate with. These three I can get behind. And they all lead to a similar observation: it's a lot easier to put yourself in an echo chamber today than it was 30 years ago, a point that the last half of your paragraph describes well. quote:Also, I would argue there was polarization of the parties before hand, it just wasn't as pronounced, or even a topic discussed or studied. Ideologically speaking, the Democrat and Republican parties have never been too far off from each other. But there are many issues that have always seen the two parties as polar opposites. Abolition, Civil Rights, Jim Crow, McCarthyism, Isolationism (iirc, the Republicans were historically deep Isolationists up until WWII, whereas the Democrats were more limited in their isolationism, they wanted to do business with Europe, but stay out of their affairs -- the 1940 presidential election was painted as two very polar opposites, the Republicans who wanted to cut off all support to Europe, because this would lead to war; and the Roosevelt Democrats who wanted to keep helping England, and thought they could do so without going to war, although FDR was secretly committed to the idea that the US would go to war, just not when.) These are all types of polarization that did not quite manifest into the extreme types of polarization that we see today. Civil Rights was a very polarizing issue in its day, but you didn't see an entire political party mobilized against it with the kind of vitriolic rhetoric that we have today. Back then, the crazies who were extremist enough to filibuster against civil rights didn't hold the reigns of an entire political party like the crazies today do. McCarthyism is an interesting example, but not really representative of polarization between the parties. That was less a polarizing issue that the parties could debate about and more of a systemic issue invading all spheres of the political arena And as ToxicSlurpee pointed out already, both parties were extremely isolationist in the decades before WW2. I'm beginning to suspect that you don't quite know what you're talking about
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:This observation runs into the small problem that the polarization of the past 30 years has been overwhelmingly strong for the party of the right, while over the same period the party of the left has moved to occupy the center. The far left wing exists but it is kept far from the levers of power. People like to laugh about lefty anti-vaxers, but when it had to the completely D-controlled government of California dropped the hammer on them. Democrat politicians were smart enough to not cater to crazy people. Republican politicians were not. That's the difference. (also almost half of anti-vaxxers are conservatives, it's not just a leftist thing like people sometimes believe) quote:It may be true that it is now easier for voters to close their minds to information that challenges their worldview, but it doesn't explain the disproportionate political influence of the extreme right as opposed to the extreme left. And this is actually closely related to your next point: I agree with this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:i like how the yank constitution has basically no human rights provisions but people say poo poo like this Dude as a Stalinist I don't think that you have any ground to stand on when it comes to human rights, or anything really HorseLord posted:stalin's country: * population doubles, lifespan doubles, goes from having 100 million illiterates to a space industry, has less people in jail than america* lol what a retard
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:would you say that to paul robeson Later in life Robeson stopped talking about Stalin because he realized what a colossal genocidal jackass Stalin was HorseLord posted:only joking you don't know who that is Looks like the joke's on you!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Really the tiny bit of popularity that libertarianism enjoys today is actually Stalin's fault; if he hadn't done such a terrible loving job as a leader of the world's premier communist nation then communism and socialism wouldn't be such huge boogeyman ideologies today among lower and middle-class people in capitalist nations. For every successful and smart move Stalin did 5-10 hosed up things to make up for it, and thus libertarianism grabbed hold within the unwealthy populations of capitalist nations instead of any number of pink or red ideologies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:To be honest Stalin could have done nothing wrong and he'd still be evil because 'COMMUNISM' - that blood is on his hands or Mao's or any left-leaning leader is irrelevant. Blood is on the hands of all of the 'developed' nations in equal measure. He'd be labeled as evil because 'COMMUNISM' but the propaganda machine wouldn't be nearly as effective without all of that blood. And if you don't need purges and poo poo to keep your government running and you don't wind up causing huge famines then more countries might have looked at communism as a viable solution, which would have further legitimized all socialist and communism-lite ideologies. Basically what I'm saying is that Stalin failed communism by being poo poo, thereby greatly enhancing the effectiveness of the US propaganda machine
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:But the West had done this, for centuries. Like, do you think history was a giant book of peace and love amongst mankind until Lenin/Stalin slid in and hosed things up? I don't even defend Stalin and his legacy but this is ridiculous. No, that's not what I'm saying at all you strawmanning bastard. Maybe go back and read my posts again? I'm saying that the propaganda machine was made significantly more effective by Stalin's fuckups. Because that's how propaganda works quote:loving Stalin, not developing weather controls. I could understand blaming Mao's Great Leap Forward for the extent of the deaths of the Great Famine, but the Holodomor's terribleness was his ethnic targeting of the victims, not his decision one day to run into the fields and kick their crops to death for a giggle. Another strawman argument? I'm not actually going down the road of suggesting that Holodomor was intentional genocide, like you seem to be implying. And trying to attribute the entirety of the 1932 Soviet famine to weather is simply laughable quote:You think Stalin being a good little kid would undo decades of oligarchs owning the media of the capitalist countries? Remember when America bought out the first Italian elections so the communists couldn't get in? Remember when America banned left-wing Filipino politicians from voting until after a bullshit trade deal was signed that gave away the Philippines' economy to American corporations? Communism could have been done perfectly and America would have done this poo poo. Oh god another strawman argument, jesus christ. I never said that Stalin should be "a good little kid" or whatever the gently caress you're trying to imply with that loaded statement. Remember how I said that the capitalist propaganda machine would be in full swing regardless but that its effectiveness was enhanced by Stalin's actions? Of course you don't, because you apparently didn't actually read my post. quote:I agree with the second half, but Stalin is not the reason communism has lost. He is the reason the Russian Federation is such a pain in America's arse right now, though. Not the sole reason, no. My argument is that he played a significant impeding role.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:More effective, yes. In other words, you agree with the only point that I actually made, and the rest of your post is you imagining other points to argue against because you forgot to take your pills today
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:We're choosing to post in a Libertarianism thread. That's self-ownership if I ever saw it. For some (caros) it's more of a compulsion than a choice
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:Why you gotta kink shame? Mentioning a kink is not the same as shaming it, dork
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Why is it critics of libertarianism spend all their time harping on debatably racist/sexist things? Even if true, and they're not, such matters are tangential at best to what I came here to talk about, and furthermore- Were you there in one of the previous appearances in the jrod thread where he literally did this like a dozen times in a row? Every single post for a week was basically what you typed here and it was endlessly funny. "I wish you guys would stop talking about racism, it's irrelevant to the discussion, furthermore *writes a 1000-word essay about how not-racist libertarians are*".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
I would have been the best Nazi concentration camp guard because *lists off a bunch of absurd hypotheticals* But enough about my hobbies, let me tell you about bitcoin
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
FilthIncarnate posted:Also Hawaii, for what it's worth; the centuries-old native monarchy there was overthrown by a group of haole plantation owners who then petitioned the US to make them a state and legitimize their revolution. Well, a century old. Almost. But we're still talking about a monarchy that was formed by a private group on one island conquering the other islands despite not having fiat currency or taxation, and which was then subsequently overthrown primarily by other private groups, so it's a good example of how people will gently caress each other for profit even without a "State"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:why did you post the exact same posts in two different threads? Because he's an idiot bitcoiner on a 1-day old account. "Lurk more" would normally be the right response, but this site already has enough idiots so "Go away" is maybe more appropriate
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:The combination of regdate, Bitcoin shilling, and word choice/tone, leads me to consider the possibility its permabanned pedophile Seraph84. In the bitcoin thread he made a bunch of posts about star citizen so it's probably Seraph84 But on the other hand there are a lot of idiots in the world besides just him
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:First, some countries aren't civilized like Somalia and nobody understand how to create civil society there. So the statement is largely correct, in the short or medium term that these countries can't just manufacture constitutional republics. That's not the argument. The argument is that people from Somalia shouldn't be allowed into the United States because they're incapable of adapting to a nice form of government like ours; "if they could handle our system of government then they'd already have it". It allows the users of this argument to oppose immigration from country X without simply stating that they think their country already has enough black people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Not the argument I was responding to which was about what would work "in" other countries. The argument that you were responding to is what's brought up in order to lead to the "don't let them in" argument. That's the point. Conservatives who use this line of reasoning aren't responding to liberals who are eager to bring democracy to a war-torn nation in Africa, they're using this to suggest that we shouldn't accept refugees from those nations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:A largely true statement that doesn't only lend itself to conservative arguments has been misused by conservatives....and? It's not largely true, though. "No one knows how to bring democracy to Somalia" is not the same as "the people of Somalia are too uncivil to ever participate in a democracy". The first one is largely a true statement. The second one is a bullshit racist opinion used by conservatives as a reason to oppose immigration
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Stop being dumb. You slightly altered the argument I was replying too again. You're still not getting it. It doesn't matter whether these regions are ready to adopt a democratic government tomorrow, they're examples raised for racist talking points almost exclusively No one is arguing that Somalia is ready to adopt Democracy right now, doofus
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Who regulates DROs and licenses them to perform their duties? In a situation where your DRO status is stored on a database people can refer to to ensure whether to do trade with you, who maintains the database and ensures your DRO has adequate license to cover you? The regulation side of things seems like it would be an easy thing to gently caress with in the absence of a string central government; a DRO of sufficient influence over the regulation and licensing of the legal authority to run DROs could do a lot to prevent the operation of smaller DRO organizations... Free market How will it accomplish this? I don't need to know how, it just will. And it'll be the most optimal solution. By definition
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:How would the crimes of children be handled by a DRO? If little 8 year old Johnny gets into his neighbor's SUV and accidentally backs over their indentured gardener, is he responsible for manslaughter, theft, trespassing, or all three? Or are his parents the ones who get whacked? *shrug* Humans act
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Your gun would have to pay bitcoins to the deceased's family, so using the Internet of Things it would collude with your fridge and your closet door to charge you extra whenever you need to access those areas. If you don't comply then the bitcoins that the fridge was mining will be used to pay for a murderdrone that kills you in your sleep (this is not violating the NAP, you see, because you aggressed against the fridge for refusing to pay the higher price for food; it's all in your user agreement, so you see this is a consensual killing)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
I've always liked how blatantly two-faced libertarian ideology always is. If you want to make sure that restaurant owners can't refuse to serve black people, then the explanation is "surely the free market is a force for good that will make sure that these places go out of business". But if you're a racist then the explanation becomes "surely the free market is a force for good that will ensure that these places prosper". DROs are awesome because libertarians will try and browbeat everyone over the importance of total freedom and privacy while pining for an Orwellian surveillance dystopia that has neither of those things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
nah, free markets create perfect societies and any interference with the free market is by definition less than perfect, ergo ipso facto end the fed
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Ron Paul is a huge racist
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
I once met Ron Paul, we joked around a bit about the Fed and then he went on a tirade about how black people are really only suitable for picking cotton and stealing white women. He had an idea where he was going to breed "the squinty-eyed hard-working chinaman" with "the brutish negroids" in order to combine the physical strength of black people with the work ethic of the Chinese. This was how he was going to reduce welfare expenditures
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Yeah come on show some respect, dick Anyway, the moral of the story is that Ron Paul is a huge unapologetic racist and so are all of the other libertarians
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 02:32
|
|