|
JRodimus! I don't know why you bothered with a new thread. Your statist oppressors can find it easily enough, and you cannot escape your past. Anyway. I'll try to answer your OP in rough order. The first five paragraphs are tone argument whining and well-poisoning and will be summarily ignored. Moving on. You then go on to define the problem of scarcity and why we need rules to determine who has control of what resources. This is all fine. But then you introduce the libertarian solution to this (also fine) and try to demonstrate its superiority to other systems by... comparing it to some nonsensical variation on the libertarian solution instead of any of the systems you're ostensibly arguing against. This is a worthless argument and will be summarily ignored. Moving on. A big problem here is that you've accepted Locke's hypothetical development of currency as if it were historical fact. The barter -> currency -> credit thing is utterly ahistorical crap. There has never been any evidence of a community using barter internally, ever. What always crops up is sharing and a non-quantitative credit system internally, with barter only showing up between social groups that don't interact enough to develop credit between one another. That is, when the standard interaction wasn't raiding. Currency doesn't show up until states create it to pay their armies. This is also ignoring the fact that this initial definition of private property causes repeated debt crises that result in people abandoning their farms and fleeing to the hills, and then returning from the hills en masse to loving murder the property owners and destroy the debt records. This ends up with Mesopotamian rulers establishing ritual forgiveness of all debts, because your necessary and prosperity-inducing property rights end up with society-destroying violence if a state doesn't step in to put the brakes on them. The rest of your post is just a series of boring wrong things we've torn apart a thousand times. You just baselessly assert that the gilded age was the most prosperous time for the US, and make a similar (but more vague) claim about Sweden; you misunderstand the absolute basics of how "democracy" (your scare quotes, not mine) actually works despite living in the United loving States; you claim that libertarians have a unified and coherent position on intellectual property; you claim that property rights become more important as scarcity increases, despite the fact that when the going gets tough, either your property rights get abandoned or the society collapses. None of it is worth responding to, because you didn't listen the first time. 
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:You loving coward In fairness, "holy poo poo this guy is a terrible writer" is probably the first thing anyone who reads a Jrod post thinks of, if only because they're treated to a thousand goddamned words before he even tries to make a point. And then he made the mistake of saying he mostly posts to improve his writing, and we all pounced. Jerry Manderbilt posted:murray rothbard loved david duke and said that there's nothing in david duke's 1991 platform that wouldn't be at home in paleoconservatism or libertarianism I didn't come here to talk about race, but [fart noises]
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
I forgot one of the arguments we brought up last time Jrod brought up his dumb Homestead Theory. Let's assume that there's worthwhile land to homestead outside of Antarctica or whatever, and let's assume that some group of people go and Mix Their Labor with the Land and claim it. It's theirs now, they have all the property rights. They and their families move out there and make a little town. Great. Then some other group comes in and murders them all. No survivors. Who the hell gets the property rights then? It obviously can't go to the murderers, since they didn't homestead the land or acquire it fairly. Does it revert to being unclaimed? In which case, it will probably be claimed by whoever is nearby, which is the murderers again. Does it become somehow beyond claim? Do we trace the founders' lineage back to some rando who the founders didn't even know and who's never even heard of the place? And before you call this a stupid hypothetical (assuming you actually respond to anything and don't just eat another ban), genocidal mass migrations aren't exactly unheard of in human history. Just ask the Picts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
And, to be clear, this isn't just "worth" as "market value." It is also a moral judgment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:What constitutes 'homesteading'? His weird Homesteading thing only applies when a person goes to a completely unclaimed or abandoned piece of land and starts using it in a productive way, like living on it or farming or building a factory. Nobody's been a homesteader in Scotland for a millennium or more. Some prehistoric folks moved into the area and mixed their labor with the land, establishing a permanent property right, and it has been peacefully and fairly passed down ever since in accordance with the Non Aggression Principle. Now I know you're thinking "wait, how do we know that all of those trades were peaceful? Human history is an unfathomably violent tradition of subjugation and invasion, and if even one transition was done through force or fraud, every owner after that is illegitimate!" To that I say, loving prove it, statist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:And how does homesteading and first-use cope with the enclosure movement? Should all commonly held land that was illegitimately taken by force be expropriated and returned to the communities it was taken from? No such thing as "commonly held land," son. If that were a real thing that existed instead of the obvious and universal Finders Keepers Standard, humanity would have died out, like Jrodimus said. We clearly aren't all dead, so QED.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:I would seriously be loving impressed if you can point to a single piece of American property that wasn't stolen. Are we counting the bits that were completely depopulated from the Columbian Exchange?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:But I think by telling Jrod what he's doing wrong, I can improve the writing of other people. They can use JRod as an example of what not to do. It's also a fun case study in him refusing to change his mind about absolutely anything, political or no. Libertarianism will always be correct, Locke's Barter Fairy Tale will always be historically accurate, and more words will always be better.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You are stipulating that the settlers don't have any friends or family that would notice that they never made contact again and would want to know what happened to them? I'm not stipulating anything of the sort. They could certainly have friends who could stop by and ask where the old settlers went. Of course the murderers could just lie and say they sold the land and left, and by your own rules the friends would need to rigorously prove that not only were the new inhabitants guilty of murder, but also that the plaintiffs are the ones to rightly inherit the land. After all, if "you got that land through murder" alone was a significant enough reason to kick someone out of their land, then pack your poo poo and move back to Europe rear end in a top hat. jrodefeld posted:I'm sure you're thinking "what is the difference between abandoned property which can be homesteaded by others and absentee property where the owner is simply not present at the moment but retains rights over its use? This is a good question and there is no exact perfect answer. I mean, no, I wasn't thinking that at all, but it is a good question. If property rights can become invalid through reasons, it is probably a good idea to figure out what exactly those reasons are! Of course you object to the idea of laws, so that's a hopeless dream. What would actually happen is that the absentee landlord and the squatters would get locked in endless litigation between two DROs that don't recognize one another, until one of them actually tries to use the land, which is obviously aggression and kicks off a proper war over it. jrodefeld posted:Private property is "public" in one important feature. The owner, in order to maintain his or her use rights over the property, must make a clear distinction on where the property borders are. A fence must be erected for example or a sign posted. The purpose of property is to be easily identified by others, so that they can avoid trespassing. If a piece of property is abandoned and left to crumble and decay, and no effort is being made whatsoever to maintain the look of occupied and privately owned property, then a reasonable person will assume that such property has no present owner. So in order for something to not be considered up for grabs, you have to fence it off with signs and poo poo? And therefore the Native Americans didn't own the land at all and the genocide was actually their fault for not having white picket fences and their names on mailboxes. jrodefeld posted:This of course does NOT apply in metropolitan areas and in current heavily populated areas where there are always clear laws about property transfers. After all, cities don't allow property to be available for homesteading if an old man dies and has no heir. There are specific methods for addressing this in most cities and States. Wait, now you're okay with city laws having precedent over the Supreme Property Law of homesteading? I thought you axiomatically opposed governments.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:This isn't a thread it's a massacre. Just like every time. But if he learned from past experiences, he wouldn't be a libertarian.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Alright, I'm going to remove the bits where you act like we don't believe in human rights, because you're a loving moron who doesn't even understand what he's trying to argue against.jrodefeld posted:I hope you do agree with me that people should have the right to control their own bodies and not have force used against their bodies. Yes, that is true. But that does not require us to think of our bodies as property! In fact, thinking that would be utterly incoherent. I've brought this up before, but if I have human rights because I own my body, can I sell my body? The ability to transfer property rights to someone else is the core facet of property as a concept. If I'm allowed to sell my body under your rules, then obviously slavery is a-okay, as long as the slave entered into it voluntarily (or had his body seized to pay a debt he could not otherwise repay). If I'm not, then who the gently caress are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body? And I know what you're thinking (because we've had this argument before): sure, people can sell themselves, but they can easily reassert self-ownership by fleeing the plantation. Which is obviously theft, and not how property rights work. If I sell someone my XBox and later regret it, I don't get to just take it back, that would be insane. jrodefeld posted:So when determining how people are to acquire legitimate property outside of their physical bodies, the reason the libertarian principle of "original appropriation" makes the most sense is that there exists a tangible link between a person's ownership over his or her physical body and the external object that is brought into ownership. By plucking an untouched object out of nature and transforming it for your use, to further the attainment of your goals, you have thus imprinted your "self", which you own if you believe in self-ownership, onto a material object. Like a sculptor who carves a statue or a painter who paints a picture, the object that is transformed has an impression of you in it. So in what sense could any other person have a better claim over the use of such a scarce resource that the one who initially transformed it? Until he or she voluntarily gives it up in a contractual exchange of course. Waitwaitwait. We assert property rights by imprinting a bit of our selves into the objects we own? Then how the hell can property be transferred to another person? They can't own bits of our selves (unless of course you're cool with slavery), and they didn't do the magic ritual that gave us that link. And make no mistake, what you're talking about here isn't reason or logic, it is literally magic. You're beaming your soul into poo poo. jrodefeld posted:Now, collective ownership is not impermissible in a libertarian society. Individuals can freely contract with a group of others to enter into a partnership over the ownership of a piece of land, or a factory. There is nothing wrong with this. But someone had to originally have a claim on whatever property they are considering making into a collective. And that person, or people, who originally homesteaded the property must voluntarily enter into a contractual partnership to have a collective ownership. A group of people cannot simply decide that they ought to own part of some land and force the original owner to vacate the land they homesteaded. No. gently caress that and gently caress you. There isn't anything special about your loving homestead principle, and if a factory owner is exploiting his workers he should absolutely be stripped of his property. Doing otherwise would be grossly immoral. jrodefeld posted:So original appropriation is not just as defensible as any other system of property acquisition, it is much more defensible because it logically follows the acknowledgment of self-ownership which most people actually DO accept. No, they don't. Sure, ask someone on the street if they have the right to control their body, and they'll say yes. But if you ask them if their body is a piece of property that they happen to own, they'll call you a loving weirdo. That is not how people think, and you really need to talk to people outside of libertarian message boards if you don't get that. Next Post. 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. Jesus Christ. Look at this. Look at what you typed. There absolutely is a shortage of people who will help those who don't have enough to eat. That's why there are people who don't have enough to eat. There isn't a global shortage of food; the world produces more than enough to feed everyone. What we don't have is the desire to help them from the people who can do so. If you want a glimpse of the ugly reality of human nature, walk down a city street with some people you know, and give money to a homeless person in front of them. And wait, what the hell are you talking about with that "far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism" thing? Is there actually somewhere on the planet that you wouldn't say that about? If so, please tell us where, so we can laugh at you. jrodefeld posted:But let me ask this. 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. We don't limit ourselves! Like, internationalism is one of the hallmarks of leftism. The problem is that you consider everyone who isn't a libertarian to be a leftist, so you assume we all talk like Obama or whoever the AnCap Boogieman of the Day is. And yeah, if you actually bothered to ask any of us instead of just assuming whatever beliefs you felt like assigning to us, you'd see a lot more support for foreign aid than you'd expect. And no, those transfers would not see a "drastic reduction in our standard of living," because there is shitloads of excess wealth literally just sitting around in corporate bank accounts, waiting to find some kind of use. I do enjoy the "and much of Europe for that matter," though, as if western Europe has some kind of lower tier of living standard than the US.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty much. Except you're missing that it is you who is the real racist, because the USA had slavery! Now let me tell you about how the Union had no right to go to war with the poor ol' Confederacy
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Without property rights who would distill spirits? Truly, the greatest testament for the failure of the Soviet Union was its lack of grain alcohol. asdf32 posted:Buddy you can have multiple rights. Not just one right from which all others must be logically derived. I mean, it's possible to have a political philosophy derived from one principle. It's just that he chose a really loving stupid one to start from. I harp on it a lot in the big thread, but the Veil of Ignorance is a single principle that doesn't end up with you debating the finer points of debt slavery or pontificating on whether or not the Native Americans were asking for it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I think what he's actually saying there is "why don't they give money outside of any state's borders", in other words, "why don't they give any money to me so I can make a seastead and go galt". Nah, he's definitely going the standard conservative concern troll route of "oh, you think the 1% have too much money? Well, on a global scale, perhaps it is you who has too much money! Why don't you want to fix that? Oh, you do? Time to talk about something else." asdf32 posted:Well what I'm saying, is that the result of applying that and creating a well functioning human society is inevitably going to result in compromises between competing rights. Because the bottom line is that rights are always in conflict with each other. I think we're in agreement then.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. Typical leftist, always blaming things on someone else. You need to take some personal responsibility! Now let me tell you about how the only reason I'm not a billionaire captain of industry is because the government is taxing my money and giving it to
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
generative grammer posted:I don't know about Sweden but the social-democratic system (including collective bargqining) was put in place in Finland back when we still had people dying of hunger and the country didn't become prosperous by western standards until the early 1980s thanks to technological advances (brought by research by publicly funded universities and public-private partnerships) and because we had the redistributive system - including state owned heavy industry - in place it was beneficial to more people than in any free-market system, and to the society as a whole because any working-class child could educate themselves to become skilled labourers with little monetary investment. You should read the libertarian thread, if only for the Finnish libertarian popping in and immediately having a meltdown. It's a thread highlight.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Although better than property, I don't think maximising happiness (or any other one common principle) can by itself act as a single guideline. I mean you could conceivably really gently caress over certain subsections of society on the basis of maximising happiness amongst the majority. The Rawlsian metric would be to maximize the welfare of the worst off people in society. Right off the bat you murder the "utility monster" and "omelas" scenarios by saying that it is the wretched outcasts and untermensch we need to be most concerned with. If letting people hoard a bit of wealth encourages them to make society-improving innovations, then they should be encouraged to do so; but if they hoard wealth by siphoning off money from the rest of society, then they need to be reined in. It's incredibly straightforward and forms the basis of a lot of western social democratic thought, but it's filthy consequentialism and therefore poisonous to the Libertarian mind. asdf32 posted:Right. This exactly. Right. You absolutely need to start with some axiom or other to reason from. JRod has chosen his axiom as "property rights are inviolable," and absolutely cannot comprehend any morality that doesn't stem from that. It's like watching a fundamentalist Christian try to reconcile people behaving morally without believing in divine punishment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Caros posted:So yeah... can anyone think of a society that has acknowledged the principle of self ownership? I'm drawing a blank. The idea of self-ownership actually comes from ancient Roman jurisprudence! Of course, it was absolutely a transferable property right, because it existed solely to justify the owning of slaves. In fact, it was invented specifically to justify treating your slaves any way you wanted to, because they're just property! Coincidentally, the Roman system of slavery was one of the most brutal institutions in world history until trans-Atlantic chattel slavery.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:leftists do support foreign aid you idiot Jrod is not capable of distinguishing between philosophies that aren't ancapism. They all get lumped into a big bucket labeled "statism." So if he sees someone on cspan decry foreign aid because "we need to help people here first," then that must be what statists believe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
God dammit JRod get back here and say something stupid so people stop posting about Ayn Rand having sex.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Wait, so what if a plantation both had slaves working the land, and was stolen from Native tribes? Who gets the land then? The white people dojrodefeld posted:Cato puts out a yearly report where they rank the countries of the world according to their "economic freedom", i.e. correlation of policies with libertarian ideology. This year, the United States ranks 16th. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Seriously though how do you come to the conclusion that you can be completely un-owing to society after having been born into it, going to school in it, being raised by it, going to work in it, living in its buildings, walking in its cities, and having your entire life defined by the contributions of others which you haven't returned in the slightest? Libertarians have a fetish for contracts. Sure, I got a free public education and use public roads and blah blah blah, but I never signed any contract that makes me liable for taxation or subject to laws, so it would be immoral of you to try to apply those to me. You just did all that stuff out of the goodness of your heart.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:n I know nothing of the wrestler, but it's impossible for him to come up with something dumber than Argumentation Ethics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let's talk about something else for a bit. Debate & Discussion: The Problem Attic > JRod Thread 2: Let's talk about something else for a bit But you want to know about me? Fine. I grew up in an abusive home that showed me exactly what happens when people with power over others are left to regulate themselves. Escaped that, went to college, did everything right like everyone said to. Buckled down, got a STEM degree, graduated cum laude, and emerged into the depths of a recession caused entirely by banks being allowed to regulate themselves. Struggled to find even temp work outside my field, without any grandparents to borrow money from interest free, and with private charities tapped out because I was far from the only person to be going through that situation. I only avoided homelessness because of food stamps. Eventually I got a job doing QA work for a company that made gas masks, working with chemical weapons agents day in and day out. The looming threat of OSHA crackdowns were the only thing that got the plant to implement any kind of safety provisions, especially after multiple people on the production line started suffering from hexavalent chrome exposure. I overheard the plant manager wishing he could goons to run over striking workers with a truck on more than one occasion. Eventually the stress of the job (and likely low-level cyanide gas exposure) pushed my anxiety issues from my childhood into a full-blown panic disorder, which I only was able to get under control using medications that wouldn't exist without government research money. Now I'm going for my PhD at a public university, and I'm only able to handle the work because of those same government-funded drugs. I had the privilege of teaching general chemistry to kids from worse backgrounds than mine, who were only able to go to college thanks to the GI Bill. And I do research in solar energy, because I have some semblance of humanity and want to pay society back for the unfathomable benefits it provided for me. So next time you're wondering why we're so loving hostile to you here, it's because you insist that the only moral society is one where I would be a childhood runaway, homeless, slowly poisoned, or murdered by my boss instead of being able to realize my potential. The government was an overwhelming force for good in my life and in the lives of thousands of people like me, and I will be god damned if I'm going to pull that ladder up behind me. Also I like watching hockey and want to keep bees someday.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
You know what, disregard everything I just said. Now that I know jrod likes basketball, I am able to overcome my bias against him and libertarians in general. Congratulations Rodimus, skimming a pirated copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People has paid off! Teach us how to make our country as free as Qatar, wise one!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:My hot take is that anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism as proposed by j-ro here would evolve into anarcho-communism within weeks if not days. Oh come now. Individual ownership of everything? All of society being reduced to compacts between people? The starting scenario is only distinguishable from feudalism if you squint.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Most of the time it seems to be "be white." We also get to define who counts as white. Anglo-saxons only, filthy papists go home.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Now it's time for me to vomit a huge page of words that will probably get torn apart by the sharks in this thread. Don't worry, I think you're going to get along fine here. The reason we go after JRod so mercilessly is because he's been posting disingenuously, regurgitating the same talking points and ignoring substantive rebuttals, for literal years. Add in his near-exclusive idolization of racists and misogynists and his refusal to admit that, and you have a recipe for getting on people's nerves. As for your own beliefs and where they put you: thinking the government should only be as large as necessary for its duties, that welfare should exist but abuse should be avoided, and opposing us propping up dictators? Those put you in the category of "not conservative or libertarian." Welcome to the not-right, where the mythical monolith of socialist/liberal/progressive turns out to be a million little ideological camps who all distrust each other at best. Look around and pick any camp you want! But choose wisely 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It's almost midnight where I live. I can post my argument against "self-ownership" in the sense of treating one's body as property, but I warn you, it's highly philosophical and theological, too. Which I understand could easily get trampled under the bus of "not my beliefs, they don't apply here." But I'll give a try when I'm awake, it gets into many of the justifications for the abolitionist movement, and into many of the reasons I've become disillusioned with the Republican party and Conservatism these days. But, it's the big reason why I'm disgusted with the idea of "my body is my property" in the way that jrode is presenting it. I'm a big history nerd, so there will probably be many call backs to history, possibly inaccurate, but I'm willing to be corrected when I'm wrong. I'll try to get to work on it when I get up in the morning, barring any random Taiwanese friends who want to go to McDonald's for pancakes. Sounds like an interesting read. More perspectives are always welcome, especially since it will help show Jrodimus that we aren't a monolithic "Left-Progressive" echo chamber. Your religion-based reasons for rejecting libertarianism are going to be different from my secular humanist Rawlsian ones, which will be different from those of the various Marxists who post around here. As for the reparations discussion, it's a very important and depressing topic to cover, but probably outside the scope of this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
The thing I love about the "body as property" argument is that every single time he lays it out to a new person, the response is always the same: "sooo, can I sell myself then? That's pretty hosed up." The response we get is either "of course not, that would be silly," "sure, but you can take yourself back at any time, because that's how property works or something," or silence. Because the body as property isn't actually something libertarians care about. It's just an attempt to convince people that believing in human rights means you have to believe in Lockean property rights.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Some aspects of Locke's theories and their historical context are pretty interesting given some of the most common arguments in this thread: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/ That's a pretty good article, and it links to another good article about Thomas Paine. T-Paine posted:Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. I guess people have been yelling at JRod for centuries. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Just as a reminder: It has been six (6) days since JRodefeld held up literal slave-states as examples of countries with more economic freedom than the USA and thus something the USA should aspire to. It has been five (5) days since JRodefeld last posted in this thread. At best, we'll get a dismissal where he doesn't necessarily support everything the Cato Institute releases (apparently including the stuff he actually quotes in support of his arguments) and it is silly for us to harp on side issues like "slavery" and "human rights violations" instead of the central point (which is a secret). More likely, he'll Want to Talk About Something Else, or he'll be gone long enough to get banned. Tesseraction posted:If the non-aggression principle applied to non-whites then Murray Rothbard is wrong. Not totally related, but you mentioned Rothbard and I don't think anyone's linked the whole thing in this thread yet: Well, they finally got David Duke. But he sure scared the bejesus out of them. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Actually, it's true, HorseLord's puzzling beliefs about World War II are irrelevant; given their rhetoric about the perils of democracy and the dreaded specter of COLLECTIVISM, most libertarians would have found a happy home on the side of the Axis. Not quite true! Ludwig von Mises notably disliked the Nazis for example (because he was part of the Austrofascist government that got overthrown in the Anschluss  ).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Can we ignore the Stalinist and get back to laughing at libertarians? Or is this just part of the natural life cycle of a JRod thread before the containment zone was put in place? He loses his argument, he vanishes, and we start eating each other until the thread gets closed?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Libertarianism is america's fault. You decided to oppose socialism and naturally vomited it's polar opposite all over the place. I mean, you're not wrong on that one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
zeal posted:modern, dedicated stalinists and trotskyists have always struck me as odd. it was a succession dispute in an empire most of them didn't even live in, that no longer exists, whose contenders left no dynasties to continue supporting. i mean, come on guy. stalin and trotsky are both a little too dead to care which one you'd have preferred get the big chair after Lenin But the other guys are splitters!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
More of this please.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:man 25 pages of this poo poo? jrod is loving you all over. he has thoroughly owned every last one of you We're choosing to post in a Libertarianism thread. That's self-ownership if I ever saw it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
His worst posts need to be preserved for posterity. The big reason he broke out of the containment thread is that it was too easy for us to find all of his terrible opinions and hit him in the face with them. He wants his support for the UAE and Qatar to be forgotten before he starts his next thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:He's actually dedicated his time and effort to finding and fighting Dickeye (current username: Literally the Worst) in real life. If Hoppe's "expunge the democrat and the race mixer" policy is anything to go by, simply advocating against Libertarianism counts as aggression. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 12:22
|
|