|
VitalSigns posted: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. 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! Though the pollution thing might be one of the best bits of doublethink in the whole of the last thread. "Why, sure, I can see how even small amounts of pollution in the air could be construed as aggression, but some impediments to personal liberty need to be accepted for the good of society."
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
Nah, it's a completely fair non-racist and non-arbitrary and still-not-racist system.Hans Hermann Hoppe posted:Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modern libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights (just as much of contemporary conservatism contributed to the erosion of families and traditional morals). What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives. Hans Hermann Hoppe posted:In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn to with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge out of a sense of duty expected of a person of authority or out of concern for civil justice as a privately produced "public good." Hans Hermann Hoppe posted:Thereby, in order to illustrate one's theoretical conclusions, every attempt should be made to compare societies which, apart from the theoretical distinction under consideration, are as similar as possible. It would be an error, for instance, to illustrate my theory of comparative government by contrasting European monarchies with African democracies or African monarchies with European democracies. Since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids, any such comparison would amount to a systematic distortion of the evidence. By contrasting European monarchies to African democracies, the theoretically predicted differences between monarchical and democratic rule would become systematically overstated, and by contrasting African monarchies with European democracies, the differences would become systematically understated.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
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- Oh man, speaking of confirming our worst suspicions, remember the time that JRod said it would be morally okay for a Libertarian to be a literal Nazi concentration camp guard as long as he killed fewer Jews than his hypothetical replacement would? Like, he actually used Nazi prison guards as his example. It wasn't even in response to a hypothetical we suggested, it just sort of happened, out of nowhere. edit: Found it! jrodefeld posted:I'll respond to this post because I think the criticism is misplaced. Libertarianism is NOT a universal system of ethics. It doesn't claim to have an answer to incredibly complex and difficult moral problems. Complicated problems like abortion do not have easy answers. There are continuum problems. When precisely does life begin and when is the taking of that life an act of murder? I don't think there will ever be one definitive answer. Or what about the legal drinking age? Why is it okay for a person at 21 to buy a beer but not at 18? What about at 17? Maybe a person at 16 or 17 should be able to drink beer but not hard liquor? Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:How can anyone keep track at this point? If they actually used the word "negroid," there's like a 95% chance it was Hoppe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
It has officially been two weeks since the OP last blessed us with his wisdom. Elapsed time between his first and last posts: 6 days.Literally The Worst posted:so yeah let this play it, it'll last two weeks and he'll run away like a baby You were too kind to him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
The idea is that all "laws" are simply clauses in explicit contracts you've signed in order to do things like buy a house or get a job or simply have police protection. Basically, take the entire function of all governments and international bodies, and turn them over to HOAs. Because if you want a model for a legislative body that doesn't gently caress with people over stupid poo poo all the time, it's HOAs. Apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Hey, now. At least some of these are modeled on insurance companies, which sounds much more enjoyable as a basis for social order. It's loving astounding how Libertarians manage to pick out all of the most frustrating and unpleasant bureaucracies in modern society and say "Yes, everything should work like these."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
And here are the bits right before that! quote:Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS. We're not racist, we just want to destroy "civil rights" and the political power of the "underclass."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"We'll run the entire country on charitable donations! No, this is not a bad plan!" It will work great! We had lots of mutual aid societies in this country up until the 1930s, when-- I would like to switch gears for a moment and talk about something else.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Animals act. Therefore, animals would naturally get along through voluntary exchange if it weren't for the presence of a state. Animals that hurt others would be shunned by the market, and quickly die out. Alpha predators don't exist without fiat currency or taxation to back them up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:If you think that libertarians actually reason from first principles, and happily follow inferences from their foundations wherever they may lead, then you will always find them confusing. That's unfair. I logically inferred an entire worldview from first principles; it just happened to line up perfectly with everything I already believed and wanted to be true. It's not my fault I'm a perfectly rational economic actor.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:What's to stop someone from just claiming they're a DRO and printing out their own DRO card? Would there be an over-arching authority for DROs to be accredited, like doctors or teachers? What if you set up your own accreditation service? There's no accreditation system, and it's totally fine for you to run your own DRO. But DROs get to pick and choose which other DROs they recognize and do business with, so if you're in an area where one company or a small network of them control a sizable majority of the customer base, they have no reason to accept you and can bar you from using any services of any of their clients. This is different than a state because of reasons. As for licensing schemes for doctors or teachers or people who work with children, it's called "the free market." Doctors who have no training at all will simply provide a discounted service for poorer clientele. And if a doctor fucks up and kills
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:So what would happen if you didn't have DRO coverage, were refused service at a shop, so you murdered the shopkeeper and when the DRO goons arrived, you were off the shopkeeper's property and didn't offer any resistance? Technically you would no longer be aggressing against them so self-defence would no longer apply and they have no voluntary agreement with you that would allow them to detain you. You don't need to make an agreement to let a DRO punish you for aggressing against one of its customers. Aggression is the only crime, and there's no statute of limitations. And a DRO needs the ability to protect its customers from outside threats, or else what good is it? Incidentally, this is the exact line of reasoning Nozick uses in his libertarian defense of the state, so well done there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This is supposed to be a point of contrast with a social contract model, but it ends up being an example of how libertarianism is so strongly modeled on the premise of the independent autonomous actor as the basic unit of social analysis that it can't really deal with the fact that humans reproduce: it is not at all clear how or why children would be bound to any of the clauses of any DRO contract. Are they considered competent to make their own decisions in this regard? That's unlikely at best in their teens and preposterous in younger childhood. Do they simply inherit the DRO contract of their parents? If so, how does this actually differ from a social contract, and leaving your parents' DRO for another once you are old enough differ from immigrating to another nation-state? Well, let's find out! [Googles "age of consent" site:mises.org] 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
I wrote a joke post about how working with politicians was the real evil there, but it just made me sad.  Seriously though, that is a solid and depressing example of why we can't expect the Free Market to assert itself without someone there to knock down anyone who breaks the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
The answer is that the parents pay the weregild and add it to the ever-growing list of child-rearing expenses little Johnny will be expected to repay upon reaching adulthood. The neighbors would have the option of taking possession of Johnny if they wished, but his attached debt would be transferred with him, so this right is rarely acted upon.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:I'm sure it's been asked before, but how does nuclear proliferation work in Libertopia? Do nukes become privately owned or what? No one will interfere with your Market-given right to own as many nukes as you can afford. Unless you forfeit that right in your DRO contract. And let me assure you, not only do we at Valhalla DRO not have such clauses, but possession of such a weapon would qualify you for a Jarl-level membership automatically!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Well to add to this, I know there probably isn't a satisfactory answer because the philosophy in general seems poorly thought out but how does libertarian philosophy deal with mentally incompetent adults? People with profound autism, mental retardation, schizophrenia or even transient conditions; severe depressive disorders can present with psychotic features, can you honestly argue that someone with bipolar in the manic phase of their condition can give meaningful consent sufficient to participate in this sort of system? Simple answer: they don't really give a gently caress. Even at the most charitable version of libertarianism imaginable, it's not a consequentialist philosophy. All they care about is if their non-aggression principle isn't violated. If their tax- and aggression-free world results in the profoundly disabled and mentally incompetent being forgotten and left to die, so be it. Charity might or might not pick up the slack, but they'd be happy either way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They don't even bother with actual data, either, and have been pretty clear that regardless of the data, their theories cannot fail only be failed. Look, the history of philosophy goes Locke, whatever anarchists I feel like co-opting, von Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe. I don't see Karl Popper on that list, so all your "data" and "facts" can go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Alternatively, bodily harm doesn't need to be proven, only violation of your property rights, so anyone who puts unwelcome molecules into your air is guilty. All of them are aggressing against you, and you are allowed to do anything in your power to stop them. Some dude drives past your house in a non-electric car? Shoot out his tires. Your neighbor is burning leaves? Confiscate his daughter as compensation. A factory two counties over has a smokestack? Prep the war rig, motherfuckers. Seriously though, both Captain and my arguments have been made by actual libertarians.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:They say you've lost when you start psychoanalyzing your opponents, but it's almost as if this philosophy mainly appeals to people who only care about the social contract insofar as it protects them. Monopolies are artifacts of the state, friend. If a DRO became overwhelmingly popular in one area, others would simply move in on their market share and no monopoly would occur. So that definition of a state you gave still applies. As for your first paragraph, we can only lose the argument if there's one actually going on. Our esteemed opposition is Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Nov 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Pulsar? Popular. Autocorrect is awful.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Oh, we're trying to bring him back, are we? *draws alchemical symbol for gold on the floor in chalk* Chant with me: The Civil Rights Act was an unambiguous good. Praexeology is pseudoscience. The Civil Rights Act was an unambiguous good. Praexeology is pseudoscience...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Good news, I, several other people, and one public notary all saw it happen. And that notary's name was Albert Einstein.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
He truly is the best worst poster. There are never signs of trolling or genuine mental illness to ruin the fun, just a bottomless fountain of pure stupidity from which we can drink as much as we please.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Well there is a third possibility: he just copy-pasted that list from mises.org without really reading it. Given his known history of plagiarizing things he's not entirely read, I'd not rule it out. This, except he took it from the Cato Institute. jrodefeld 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. He was just citing it as "data" to prove that the UK and Switzerland are actually libertarian, so we can be like those European countries you progressives love so much if we just do whatever he says. He probably didn't even notice that Qatar and the UAE were on the list.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Hong Kong is now a country independent of China, so sayeth the great Cato Institute. Mauritius is a little island in the Indian Ocean. They're a parliamentary democracy without much in the way of human rights abuses as best as I can tell. Looks like a beautiful place too, if google images are to be believed. It's on the list because it's a tax haven 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
JRod, let me tell you a little story. A while back, I wrote a computer model for my research to model how light passes through certain materials. It was simple and elegant. Also, about 10% of the time it predicted I'd get more energy out of the material than I put in, which is a blatantly absurd result. Did I present the model to my boss and get mad at him for "nitpicking" when he noticed the problematic results? Did I toss the embarrassing data points and claim the rest of the model was valid? Of course not. I tossed the model in the garbage where it belonged and started in on one that doesn't have the same problems. Because that's how these things work. If you carefully set up all your assumptions and logically follow them through to their conclusions, and those conclusions are loving insane, you have to go back and figure out which of your assumptions are wrong. Cato made a model of economic freedom, and that model gives high ratings to countries where huge swaths of the population have no economic freedom at all. That doesn't mean there are weird outliers, that means that the model is worthless, and you need to acknowledge that. And this keeps happening. Every time you cite somebody who shares your philosophical premises, we do a little digging and it turns out they use it to endorse the most heinous poo poo imaginable. After a certain point, you should start questioning why you trust these people, or even why you believe in their premises in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
We've been over this, homie gives no fucks for Nozick. Anarchy State and Utopia endorses the existence of a state, however minimal, so JRod doesn't acknowledge him as part of the fold.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
God, that Cato model is breathtaking. I just can't stop looking at it. Top marginal income tax rate makes up 5% of the score, all other income tax rates are not considered. Standard deviation of inflation is on the list as an acknowledgment that inflation has a lot of inherent variance, and then "gently caress it, what was the last data point on the graph" is right afterward and weighted just as heavily. It just gets dumber the more I look at it. Also, I assume subsection 5(B)(iv): "Extra payments/bribes/favoritism" dings the slave states a bit. Some people being hereditary nobles who run businesses while others are literal property seems like favoritism to me. Good thing that's only 1.1% of the score, though! I would hate for that to outweigh "Freedom to own foreign currency bank accounts" (5% of total).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:And at this point Jrod will disappear into the ether until the day he randomly decides to come reward us with is presence by telling us how smart and handsome he is once again. I've given in-depth responses and I've also made snide jokes about him redefining words. The rule I've learned is that he only responds if you give him those "inflammatory substance-free replies." People respond to incentives, whoda thunk. Captain_Maclaine posted:He actually finally denied being a watermelon fucker during his last bout of posting! Everything else he's ever posted has been wrong. Why would this time be any different?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
And even assuming your ancestors had OCD slave owners and everyone had their claims appropriately resolved, that only causes more problems. How many different slaves worked that land over the 200+ years of our Peculiar Institution? And how many descendents do they have today? Any given black person would be lucky to get a square foot of land in a hundred different former plantations. And that's not even getting into figuring out who gets which square foot. And then, oh poo poo, the Native Americans whose land was stolen in the first place show up with a solid argument that the whole of that land should be returned to them! If the land was stolen from one group and used to exploit another, how do you divvy it out? It goes back to the point raised earlier: the crimes committed in the name of property are so vast as to be completely impossible to address by handing out land.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
 AND ANOTHER THINGjrodefeld posted:To state the obvious, it is not only libertarians who value private property rights. All political ideologies have a strong conviction on private property. Marxists have a deeply felt conviction that the product of the worker's labor is their property and therefore the Capitalist is a thief by pocketing a profit from the product manufactured by the worker. That is why they feel it is justified for the workers to rise up and take control of the factories, taking them away from the Capitalist. It is not a random whim that is used to justify re-appropriation of property from the perceived thief to the "rightful" owner, but a consistent if mistaken concept of just property rights. This got mostly lost in the shuffle because it got posted during your """defense""" of the Cato study, but I'd like to take a moment to marvel over how loving ludicrous this is. EvanSchenck already pointed out how wrong you are about Marxism, so what other philosophies are putting all this value on private property rights?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:More like "people who are whiter" Georgism?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 01:45
|
|
Wasn't there some movement which actually argued that all land should be nationally held, and instead of an income tax, everyone would pay basically some rental tax because they didn't make that planet they were using, but they DID make/buy/whatever their various improvements?
|
 "Here is a Cato freedom study that says what I want it to!" "There are two slave states they rank as more free than the USA, and also Cato is a garbage organization for idiots." "Oh, okay. Here's a Heritage study instead! Those slave states are only in the top quintile this time!"Never not post, JRod, you magnificent imbecile. Also it would be cool if you could link that second study too, so we can mock you for their methodology and results like we did for the last one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I think jrod should read David Graeber, who is an anarchist who hates state regulations and restrictions and initiatory violence just like him (note: actually not at all like him)! It would be a mind-expanding experience, in any case. Not just jrod. Debt: the First 5000 Years is a great book and anyone who actually gives a poo poo about theories of property should read it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And I don't think Walter Block makes a very persuasive case at all. But this has absolutely nothing to do with libertarian objection to slavery. Slavery is a historical phenomenon (which unfortunately persists to the present day in certain parts of the world) that all decent people oppose. Walter is describing a completely theoretical contractual sort of slavery that has never actually existed anywhere. So to cite Walter Block and then infer that libertarians are not sufficiently opposed to actual slavery, i.e. the sort that has actually historically occurred and continues to occur where people are kidnapped against their will, beaten and killed if they disobey is disingenuous in the extreme. Well well well, look who doesn't know poo poo about poo poo! Look up "debt slavery" somewhere other than Mises or Rockwell. You might learn something for a change. jrodefeld posted:I really think that this attempt at claiming libertarianism is somehow not opposed to slavery or indifferent to the issue is incredibly dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith. Even Walter Block's theoretical future "voluntary" slavery system is not supported by almost any other libertarian and, more importantly, is completely distinct from any actually existing phenomenon. The Cato study that you brought up, unprompted I might add, gave two states where slavery is completely legal an explicit endorsement of being more free than the USA. Its methodology that you repeatedly linked allocates 10% of its total score to taxes on the rich, and 0% to "is slavery legal." The study you brought up to correct the previous study after we called you on it kept Qatar and the UAE in the top quintile. The Walter Block argument that you're defending/dismissing here is a libertarian endorsing an extremely common form of slavery that, again, you brought up unprompted. We're not making anything up or trying to trap you, we're just looking at things you've brought to us and pointing out how incredibly hosed up they are. edit: "Well, I completely skipped 35 pages of my own thread because I'm pretty sure everything you all said was worthless. Now stop arguing in bad faith, guys!" Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's worse than that, it just straight up abandons the idea of self-ownership. It's like saying I can sell you my car and then later decide I want it back. Well, too loving bad for me, it's your car now and you don't have to give it to me unless you want to. Suddenly, when the concept of "self as own property" is carried through to considering the right to sell property, you are not your property, your rights are not the rights of a proprietor, they are the rights of someone with an inalienable will. Because if you were your property and all your rights derive from your self-ownership, you should be able to transfer your self-as-property to a new owner and with it all the rights you enjoyed as a self-owner. Otherwise you do not have property rights in yourself. I've tried this argument with him at least three times. He will never respond, because he is a coward. bokkibear posted:I had to read this Rothbard quote twice, because as far as I can tell this argument can be perfectly generalised to any contractual agreement where one person agrees to do something in the future. Observe: This is correct, and hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I am frankly astonished at the amount of time you all have spent focusing on this particular post and then inferring that it proves libertarians don't care about slavery. Caros was the only one that touched upon any actual substance regarding this claim, but even he didn't go into much substance. To be clear, we are speaking about immigrant workers who don't have enough rights vis a vis their employers (union leverage) which is being called "slavery". We are not, by and large, speaking about actual chattel slavery in which human beings are legally sold as physical property and cannot disassociate from their masters, correct? I might be drunk at the moment too, but gently caress that and gently caress you. You do not get to talk about good-faith discussion, you wouldn't recognize a good-faith argument if it took a poo poo on your chest. I spent plenty of time trying to get you to engage honestly in the last thread before you ran away from it with your tail between your legs, and I learned a simple lesson: the more effort and facts and logic we put into a post, the more likely you are to ignore it. So if you don't like it, engage with the effortposts, and maybe people will make them more. As for your Qatar/UAE points, look at this. Look at these things you wrote: You posted:I am open to being educated on this topic because I admit to not knowing a great deal about the internal policies of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. You, in the same goddamned post posted:To be clear, we are speaking about immigrant workers who don't have enough rights vis a vis their employers (union leverage) which is being called "slavery". "I don't know anything about what we're talking about, but I'm sure you're just bitching about unions not being powerful enough." People have tried to educate you, but you're apparently incapable of reading a basic sentence unless it has a Mises.org header at the top. It's actual, literal, no-poo poo slavery going on there. The slaves can't leave the country, they can't quit their jobs, they can't travel or open bank accounts or countless other things. They're being beaten and raped by their owners. And the slaves are pushing half the population of Qatar at this point. That's half the country with literally no rights. It's astounding how much you distort anything and everything to fit your cultist viewpoint. You write up a half-dozen paragraphs about how income taxes are literally slavery, but when you're presented with your own study endorsing countries where slaves are dying in droves to build soccer stadiums, the word slavery gets scare quotes and dismissals about unions instead of actually looking into it.And guess what? Once slave states get high marks on a freedom list, the entire methodology behind that list absolutely must be scrapped, regardless of anything else on it. If I was at work and made a model for electrical conductivity, and concrete ended up near the top of the list? You had better goddamn believe my boss would hone in on that! And he wouldn't take kindly to my response if it consisted entirely of me whining about it. It points to a severe deficiency in the model itself. As we've pointed out, that deficiency is incredibly obvious to any non-cultist who looks at it: the model only factors in the experience of rich business owners and could not give less of a gently caress about anyone else. We've pointed this out over and over, and your only response is to re-post the exact list we're criticizing, as if it changes anything. I'm not with Caros on this one. You're not a child who can't be blamed for believing all the crap your mother taught you. You've had ample chances to change your mind, and countless people have tried to talk some reason into you. You aren't a poor misguided soul deserving of pity. You are an idiot coward deserving of nothing but contempt. You aren't even worth violence, because you and your entire movement are powerless cowards who will never, ever have the power to enact your depraved ideology on others. So gently caress you, gently caress Mises, gently caress Rothbard and Hoppe and all the Walters you can muster. Your whole movement is a worthless pile of self-justifications, and it will be thrown into the garbage where it belongs once its ultra-wealthy funders finally die off and leave the rest of us to clean up their mess. PS You're a racist
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:46 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:I hope you'll all participate. Is there a portion of the debate where we just hurl obscenities at him? Because sign me up, I have a real annoying voice and I was raised by a carpenter and a truck driver who taught me the right way to swear at people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 05:47
|
|
