|
Caros posted:we stole this land from the native americans, but its okay because we didn't give them a receipt. This is the best distillation of libertarianism I've ever heard. Well this and Ron Paul's magazine's hagiographic tributes to apartheid, but this is shorter.
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Hey jrod why are you ignoring substantive posts challenging you on the history of industrial development in America and instead writing replies opening withjrodefeld posted:There's no reason to respond to a post like this but People are making good points which you're ignoring in favor of cherry-picking insults in order to complain that no one is willing to engage with you on the issues.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
He won't answer those points that the US and Britain did not become developed industrial powers using laissez-faire. Hell he never even answered your healthcare posts from last year Caros. He is going to focus on the scattered posts pointing out how racist all this North American homesteading stuff is and claim victory because left-liberal-progressive-muslim-socialist-kenyan-jacobins have no arguments and only know how to cry "racism!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Hey jrod I have an urgent question, sorry for typos: phoneposting under some emotional stress. Say I fall off a balcony and somehow manage to grab one hand onto the balcony of the condo below me. The property owner comes out and says I'm trespassing and orders me to let go. I tell him I will die if I do and I have a human right to live, but he doesn't agree and answers that human rights are property rights and I cannot impose a positive obligation on him to allow me to use his property to support my life. I would appreciate if you don't delay too long, he is looking ticked off and starting to mutter something about victims and aggression. Update: His DRO has arrived but they support his right to use force to defend his property. I think the baseball bats they are using on my fingers is unreasonable, but they insist it's retaliatory self-defense. They've agreed to arbitration of our dispute in a complex series of free-market appeals courts but only if I cease my aggression against their client's property so they can stand down their bats. Do I have the right to insist the court venue convene next to my smashed remains on the street below, even though it's against their policy to approve out-of-network venues? I don't think that's fair when they know I won't be able to appear anywhere else. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
But leftists haven't given enough to solve world hunger, so clearly this is because progressives aren't actually interested in doing it and couldn't in any way be a result of right-wing opposition to foreign aid.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Reminder that jrod is the guy who became a Libertarian after he tried to apply for SSI but there was too much paperwork, and he blames this on the progressives who want to expand the program and make it more accessible, and not on the right-wingers who waged a successful campaign to make getting assistance as difficult and miserable as possible. So it makes sense that he'd blame the too-low amounts of foreign aid on the progressives who want to give more and not on the conservatives who are always fighting to give less.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:His words don't support that though. The only sensible reading is that he's bitching we don't give money to people who are somehow not in any state, which is approximately no people outside people currently on transoceanic air/sea transport. No point to give him more credit and assume he means something that at least makes sense! No, check out his very next sentence. And the next paragraph. jrodefeld posted:Why is it that leftists seem to confine their redistributive goals to within the borders of existing States? Why shouldn't all the richer countries be forced to give up any of their "excess" wealth and transfer it to poorer countries until everyone on the planet is materially equal? If we speak about the abuse of the 1%, WE are the global 1% and are just as fabulously wealthy to a poor person living in North Korea or some African nation rune by an authoritarian regime than a Wall Street banker seems to us.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
I'm a fair guy. Even though I'm still hanging by one finger waiting for jrod to provide me with a libertarian justification to convince the owner of this condo to allow me to save my life by pulling myself up the rest of the way on to his property 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:You got a quote for this? jrodefeld posted:Let me tell you a short story. A buddy of mine is a libertarian who follows this stuff pretty closely. He told me a story of a poor woman who happened to be black who was married to a good husband. Unfortunately, she was struggling to make ends meet and sought out some assistance from the welfare office. She wasn't trying to get on permanent welfare and was by no means a moocher. She just needed some help putting food on the table and providing for her family in the short term. She was told explicitly "we can't give you this money unless you kick your man out of the house". She was shocked. She said "no, he is a good husband, I don't want him gone I just need a little help in the short term." The answer didn't change. Kick the man out of the house or you aren't eligible for any assistance. It goes on from there, pro-week for the libertarian thread
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Libertarians like Malcom X and black nationalism because they see it as a good way to get all the black people out of their neighborhood and into another country. They just kind of ignore the part where Malcom X wasn't advocating for the bantustans that Libertarians want.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Which twin could survive if the other was removed surgically? Survival of the fittest shows that whomever would be able to live apart would be the 'self owner' with the other one just along for the ride. You homestead the shared heart and kill the other one if he commits aggression by continuing to use blood from it. The aggrieved family of the dead twin is of course perfectly within their rights to sue for compensation and the organs after-the-fact although they shouldn't expect their case to get anywhere against the current property owner if they can't provide a property deed or some other ironclad proof-of-ownership on behalf of the deceased.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Something something, Romney's confiscatory 11% tax rate is why he doesn't have enough money to give to the poor after buying his 20th classic car and the elevator for it, if only we eliminated taxes the rich would have the money they need to solve poverty lickety-split
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:She also loved cheating on her husband repeatedly right in front of him. She claimed they had an open relationship, but when her husband started seeing someone else she went nuts on him. Literally The Worst posted:wasnt her husband schtuppin someone good-looking too CommieGIR posted:A model, Ayn demanded that he be impotent for the rest of his life. I hate myself for knowing this, but her husband never hosed anyone else. It was her younger already-married protegee/lover who, fifteen or so years after he and Ayn broke it off, started dating a hot model on the DL while Ayn was trying to convince him to start up their old affair. This was of course an unforgiveable sin on his part because your sexual desires should be totally integrated with your intellectual and philosophical values, which means a good Objectivist would want to sex up Ayn Rand's unthoroughly-washed geriatric body all the time. The better Objectivist you are, the bigger the harem you're allowed to have and the more exclusive your subordinate Objectivist fucktoys have to be to you, since Ayn Rand is the best Objectivist...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:God dammit JRod get back here and say something stupid so people stop posting about Ayn Rand having sex. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Ufff keep going, I'm almost there
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Haha no see we just made an alliance with racists and neoconfederates and apartheid-lovers because we decided low taxes were more important than racial equality and civil rights #wearethelibertypeople. We don't hate blacks, we were just willing to sell them out in exchange for a 31% top tax bracket #notracistbut
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
*is insolvent, takes advantage of nepotism to get an interest-free no-qualification $1000 loan to survive* "It's moral to let everyone who can't make it on the free market without relying on handouts die of exposure and illness"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The fact that libertarians tolerate Hoppe rather than going out of their way to condemn him proves that their courting of racists was hardly skin-deep; in fact, they're racists to a man, with a few fussbudget dupes thrown into the mix like William Grigg. Um excuse me it's not racist if you're only supporting racists and racist policies in order to get a tax cut
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:"You see, heavily armed goons who currently control our neighborhood, we're just not satisfied with the level of service you're providing and have decided to stop paying you and hire someone else. This, we think, is rational, well-thought-out, and in no way a parallel to when the post-Roman Britons decided stopping paying their Saxon mercenaries was a great idea with no potential backlash. Furthermore-"*unaccountably dies of a bayonet through the throat* It must be so confusing to read a history book as a Libertarian. "I don't understand what's happening here, why didn't the Abbasids just tell the Mongols they were happy with their current DRO and weren't interested in switching providers at this time, but they'd consider it if Great Khan DRO would send them a brochure detailing the latest offerings and specials? Surely the Mongols wouldn't want to alienate potential customers with too-aggressive marketing techniques!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Have you heard the expression "hard cases make bad laws?" There are libertarians who have spoken about such extreme situations, but I want to speak about "lifeboat scenarios" in general because they are practically worthless regarding the validity of ethics or law that must be based on normal situations, not extreme and unusual circumstances that most of us are unlikely to ever encounter. Nearly every system of ethics breaks down in the most extreme of situations. What, neither this nor the Rothbard quote answers the question at all. Those hard cases absolutely exist, so we should just what, never bring it up and decide to die if it ever happens to us? The only way I can parse this answer in a non-ridiculous way is that you're agreeing property rights aren't absolute and cases exist (where it's life-or-death for one person versus a virtually unnoticeable inconvenience for another) when property rights aren't all-controlling and should be violated, but this shouldn't become a general rule. In which case, congratulations you've just made the case for progressive taxation, liberal democracy, and the welfare state!  Alhazred posted:No, lets talk about that you were calling the UAE and Qatar economic free despite the fact that they have slavery. Also this, you don't get to hold up theocratic slave states as paragons of liberty to which the USA and Europe should aspire and then go "so, what's your favorite food guys, I like a good Chicago deep dish who prefers New York Style?" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
"People" is like three letters longer than "men" though, got to save ink.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Caros posted:It's also possible that he could have just said "Men" and left it as that because anyone who is so up their own rear end about pronoun usage that they'd take offense to non-gender neutral pronouns in a random discussion on an internet comedy forum is a sad individual. Bring back menschen. It's nice having a conservative post here actually, because it's funny to see even conservatives look at libertarian bullshit and be like "no what the gently caress?!" Hey YF19, you don't sound much like a modern-day conservative to me though, do you consider yourself a Republican? Your opinions come off closer to agreeing with Bill Clinton or Jim Webb or Governor Mitt Romney than to Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Paul Ryan, or Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It doesn't really matter. If he actually cared he'd recognize the need for a state. The best part about ancap utopias is every time they try to start one either (1) it's a scam and someone runs away with all the money, or (2) they crumple at the slightest show of force from a nearby state no matter how tiny. Jrod seems to at least be unconsciously aware enough to continue living within the protection of the evil coercive US government rather than actually trying to go be a property owner somewhere with no method of enforcement.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:"All problems stem from <thing> and have nothing to do with you as a person" is really attractive regardless of what <thing> is. In this case, it's the state. It's also really comforting to believe that there's this one simple book that has The Truth, and bad things happen because the world has rejected it. See also: religious cults.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
But his bosses were commies who thought it was moral to pay for health care for the children of their workers, so you see it was noble to steal the invention he made on company time with company capital.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:I'm still amazed America's 20th century tragedy is nothing more than that a military base was attacked. What a pathetic people. Vietnam?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
drat it y'all broke jrod's new "I'm more leftist than thou, watch me namedrop Lysander Spooner while I quote fascists" stratagem when you called him out on ranking Middle Eastern slave-state dictatorships "more free" than the US because slavery is profitable, I don't think he's coming back
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
What is the Libertarian theory on gladiatorial combat to the death? It was historically done by slaves so obviously Libertarians are cool with that as long as the owner freely chooses to risk his property for profit or merely sport. But what about the occasional freeman who wants to have a go in the ring? Can you actually consent in advance to possibly being killed in a fight wherein you're actively battling to avoid death? (This is different from assisted suicide, which requires the patient himself to commit the final button-press to trigger the lethal gas, if the doctor intervened at the last minute and did it for him that would be murder). It would seem that if you own your body, you can consent to it being destroyed. Can you withdraw the consent at any time during the battle? (Courts are usually reluctant to enforce specific performance, although perhaps Libertarian courts wouldn't be, if your body is treated like any other piece of property). If you can withdraw consent at any time, what happens if your opponent renders you unconscious or otherwise helpless before the killing blow so that you're no longer capable of expressing consent, is it murder if he goes on to kill you? Come back jrod, inquiring minds want to know.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
I still can't believe he actually came right out and admitted that. "We're the liberty people! Rule Number One of Liberty: no freedom of speech on private property. Rule Number Two: every square inch of ground is private property. Good luck out there, orphans!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
It's great how up their own rear end Libertarians are about how non-aggression is the only rational, universal, logically consistent principle on which to base our legal and moral systems, and everyone else's philosophy is some arbitrary self-serving mish-mash. ...but then you dig just a little bit into what aggression is, and you discover there's no universal agreement or consistency in the definition at all, and depending on which Libertarian you ask aggression can be anything from collecting taxes, polluting, forbidding pollution, being gay (Hoppe), being a child anywhere in Gaza (Block), disagreeing with Libertarians, or whatever. It's a pretty neat trick to smuggle in a whole unstated axiom with all sorts of implications and consequences that just so happen to fit your random prejudices and preconceived ideas. But at least it's not arbitrary like the laws in a vulgar democracy!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Except when it is and we get some moral principle like homesteading named after a law from a vulgar democracy and flagrantly attempting to reverse engineer some sort of justification for it after the fact. Oh yeah, I forgot that "property" is the other vague arbitrary definition and it amounts to something like that Eddie Izzard bit about how you don't own anything you didn't have the sense to stick a flag on before white men arrived and put up their flags. Nolanar posted:Well, if you lump everyone who believes in taxation into a big bin and write "Left-Progressives" on it, and then pull ideas out of the bin at random, you'd see how inconsistent those ideas are plain as day! And even when the pollution is bad enough to injure you, you can't enjoin the polluters or collect restitution unless you can prove exactly who was involved and to what degree, so good luck uncovering the specific particulates responsible for each tumor and tracking them back through the decades to their point of origin, and then winning against Dow Chemical in any privately-funded court they'd accept. But you don't have to worry about this, companies will naturally choose not to pollute because no consumer would buy a cell phone from a company that poisoned an entire Chinese village to make it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:How are laws made/passed? Who dictates what laws exist? Can the population at large change and alter laws? Is there a mechanism for recognizing new laws and abolishing old ones? Would it be easy or hard to change laws? What checks would be in place to prevent passing laws that favor one group of people over another? This is your problem: you fundamentally misunderstand DROs if you think they're customer-service oriented entities that cater to individual yeoman farmers. DROs make the laws, and you accept whatever laws the DRO you can afford tells you to accept, because DRO coverage is mandatory and not having it is punishable by death (either quickly by criminal elements who take advantage or slowly by starvation and exposure because it's illegal to sell or trade with an uncovered person). Here, take a minute and read this primer on DROs that jrod posted in an earlier incarnation of this thread. As you're reading it, keep in mind that it is an argument in favor of DROs and stateless law enforcement. Stefan Molyneaux posted:However, the stateless society goes much, much further in preventing crime specifically, by identifying those who are going to become criminals. In this situation, the stateless society is far more effective than any State system. Let me reiterate: the above was posted by jrodefeld to convince us to adopt this system, and not an exercise in speculative fiction about how a horrific Shadowrun dystopia would function.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 05:34
|
|
a daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock
All of the above insurance policies would require DROs to take active steps to prevent such behaviours
the mind boggles at all the preventative steps that could be taken! The important thing to remember is that all such contracts are voluntary, and so do not violate the moral absolute of non-violence.
|
It's pretty amazing that DROs are able to exact swift and unerring justice (and preemptive justice like forcing your daughter to wear a GPS ankle bracelet and virgin alarm) with overwhelming force, but also they are nothing but unarmed accountants and actuaries because after all why would they need weapons when no rational individual would ever commit a crime?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Libertarians gushing about the wonderful surveillance
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also it is kind of heading towards a problem because the government keeps cutting funding to it Well sorry if they're not doing a good job, then they should be punished with less money as an incentive to improve quality of care and customer experience. Once they improve, taxpayers will be willing to fork over more.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
It is true, but not for the reasons conservatives give. They argue that it's a racial/genetic/culture problem of inferior races refusing to work and just milking the system and thereby bankrupting the country, when of course as you note it's a political issue that stupid racists will willingly gently caress themselves over as long as they think they're hurting the blacks or whoever more by doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Mises was also a utilitarian and he thought ontological ethics are dumb made-up bullshit, not that Libertarians actually care about anything he wrote except the part where you don't have to pay any taxes for anything
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you go from utilitarianism to libertarianism? My dad is in love with von Mises, and gave me Human Action when I was eighteen, here's my distillation of how this works: 1) Begging the question with a self-serving definition of voluntary. We've already talked about this. 2) Positivist view of psychology (but only where it's convenient). It's impossible to observe people's internal states and any attempt to model or make inferences on them is fantasy, except we will assume that the only reason people do things is because they judge it to be in their best interest. Unless they're doing it because a law says to, because the purpose of laws is to make people do what they don't want to do, so by the previous sentence we will assume laws always make people act against their self-interest. Please ignore that I support laws and coercive taxation to fund the police and the military 3) Complete subjectivism in values. Whatever someone think is in their best interest, is, because they're in a better position to know their interests than anyone else. If someone says "I'm not vaccinating my kid because I think it is harmful to him" and the kid dies from measles, this was in their self-interest because they acted to prevent their kid from being vaccinated and succeeded. If other people lose vulnerable family members to this outbreak, this didn't harm their self-interest because the only thing we can say about vaccines is people get them because they want to be pierced by needles, theorizing about their reasons or state of mind is meaningless. You might think we can infer their internal states when they start sobbing but there's no way to directly observe what made them decide to expel excess salinity, or why their mouth is making noises that sound like "my daughter died needlessly because so many people didn't vaccinate" 4) Ignorance of game theory, specifically nonoptimal equilibrium points. It couldn't possibly serve anyone's long-term self-interest to have an effectively enforced law that everyone must cooperate in the prisoners' dilemma. Thus, the greatest happiness for the greatest number consists in not having any laws at all except the ones I like, because when everyone follows what they think is in their own self-interest all the time, we'll get the (subjective) best of all possible worlds. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
They wouldn't do that because not recognizing court orders or officers of other smaller DROs would be an obvious anti-competitive tactic that would piss of customers, so they'd cancel their service to send a market signa-- *gets shot by a vigilante hunter of uncovered persons, falls into a privately-owned ditch alongside the emaciated forms of other unsatisfied customers exercising their right not to contract with the big DROs*
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Yeah that's how you make investigation, arrest, fines, prison time, executions, etc voluntary: you sign a contract that gives your DRO permission to do those things to you if you break the law. But instead of evil tools of statist oppression like due process and constitutional rights, free market DROs have mandatory contractual security cameras in you house, tracking bracelets if you're merely accused of a crime, and impose a duty to abandon your husband forever if the DRO even suspects he may turn to crime. Liberty! Also, I'm not sure what protects people who don't have DROs from being robbed, raped, and murdered for sport. Ideally the perp's own DRO will prosecute him for that, but in reality why would they ever do that. We've asked jrod, but the only answer is people are good-hearted and won't want to see the homeless tortured for kicks or child-slave sex trafficking rings doing a brisk business in penniless orphans, or Emirates-style immigrant slave labor so they'll make charitable donations to extend DRO protection to them and/or will refuse to buy anything from a company that depends on slave labor.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 10:13
|
|