|
GunnerJ posted:Sometimes I think it might be a major improvement for the thread if someone just played the role of jrod, or hell just devil's advocates libertarianism. Chances are good whoever stepped up would make a better case for it (or at least a more concise case). It ain't hard but it's not a very prolonged discussion when you make libertarian arguments concisely.  : There shouldn't be any states, only corporations. : Wouldn't that result in rampant exploitation?: Yes, and I will benefit from it.: Will you really?: Yes.: But you are not a millionaire?: I will be.
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:Probably around 7 or 8 EST, like last time. I could probably do that as long as nothing crazy happens at work that day. Which uh, could happen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So Caros, I’d ask you to now, in light of the overwhelming evidence that the healthcare system in the United States over the past fifty years has nothing to do with any proposed libertarian solution, to either admit to making a gross error in thinking that it did when you rejecting your previous libertarian beliefs. Or you are free to elaborate on your reasons for rejecting it but the experience with losing your friend, as emotionally distressing as that no doubt was, provides absolutely no argument against libertarianism whatsoever. Your concession to this fact would mean we are at least making progress. How tasteful!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
hey jrod, nobody wants your belief system. The funny thing is they don't even get to the merits of the beliefs, they are just turned off by the people who are always talking about it: freaks like you, racists like Hoppe, misogynists like Molyneux, neo-confederates, wife-beaters and child pornographers. To a man; plus, Mary Ruwart.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you take this logic to its natural conclusion, you'd have to accept a total command-economy form of totalitarian socialist central planning. Correct, good. No problem. Bring it in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So, please, tell me why the Oklahoma Surgery Center is not an example of libertarian success in reducing the out of control costs in medical care? Because their surgeons have to be certified by THE STATE just like everybody else. Any other questions? Look how a baby can't recognize all the ways the state supports private enterprise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I guess I should talk to you like I would a loving child because that is about the level of your economic literacy. Oh are you getting mad? gently caress your "reality of scarcity," the answer in every case is to simply take from the rich. Take, take, take. Take their earnings, take their businesses, take their boats and houses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Never heard that expression? The joke is that there is no beachfront property in North Dakota, but if you are gullible enough to believe the poo poo you believe, then you might be gullible enough to think that there is. Another variation is "if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you". "If you believe that, I've got some land in Chile to sell you."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is no argument against what I was saying whatsoever! Yes, and the doctors had to drive on government roads to get to the hospital too. The State exists and we all have to deal with it. But in most respects, the people in charge of the Oklahoma Surgery Center have been able to eschew most third party involvement in their practice and market directly to consumers. They are the MOST free market oriented surgery center that I am aware of in the United States and the result of their efforts is tremendous cost savings over State and Insurance funded hospitals. They don't eschew it, they love it. They love paying taxes, driving on roads and having state standards for certification. Libertarians don't have any solutions for how to provide these essential services because if they did, they'd have done it by now. Libertarians are airy, abstruse theoreticians who lose to statists every time. Then they release audiobooks that are 12 straight hours of crying about it. Libertarians prefer to live in a world of dreams, rather than the real world. In the real world, the state is king and the best solution. Have a better idea? Do it, don't cry about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've read my share of Proudhon and, honestly, if you'd be willing to adopt a Proudhon-style of Anarchism then I'd consider us close enough ideologically to be considered allies on most issues. Wait are we talking about the same Proudhon who said "in the matter of taxation every pretension to justice is inevitably utopian"?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Never mind, I forgot that jrod pretends to love Lysander Spooner as well, even though he literally was a card-carrying member of the First International
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
(that's an example of me taking license for the sake of exposition; I didn't forget.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
 Murray Rothbard's Idea Of "Liberalism" Was Ending Apartheid
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Ron Paul is no racist you loving disingenuous lunatic. Nobody has ever produced a single shred of evidence apart from those early 90s Newsletters that were so obviously ghostwritten and contrary to the expressed views of Ron Paul throughout his entire political career. They were ghostwritten by Lew Rockwell, who is still buddies with Ron Paul, Ron Paul posts articles on his website along with other neo-confederate fascists. Let's take a look and see if he still does that Oh Look Here's One From loving Tuesday: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/ron-paul/beginning-civil-unrest/ Surprise, Ron Paul loves white terrorists from Idaho and Oregon, as well as any other hole they crawl out from, and they love him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Oh and this is the picture they put up when posting his article, every quote of jrod should just be this image:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Yes, what happened to black people and Indians and subjects of colonial power was very bad *affects look of concern that just looks like a crazy glare because you learned it from molyneux* however, none of those people's literature is worth reading, only lily-white mises.org and lewrockwell.com that keeps me loving racist misogynist womb-colonialist Ron Paul, is worth reading. The most important battle on earth right now is one that, regretfully enough, puts me in common cause with a rustling thicket of white supremacists
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
I saw a banner ad from across the room, it actually said "DAD vs DAD" (maybe it was for that will ferrell/mark wahlberg movie) but for a minute I thought it said "DRO vs DRO" and I got really excited.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:"I 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 20:35
|
|
taxation; I
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Can I please be involved in the next "Goons Talk About Libertarianism?" I'll try to keep up with the thread, but PM me about it if you don't see me postin'. I haven't been in on any of them. I've been wanting to get a good mic and this is as good an excuse as any...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:I'm a libertarian. I don't see anything wrong with insurance or ports. Where's your straw man now? You're not a libertarian.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:This and the "watermelon fucker" rant from Mr. NYT Bestseller, aren't these explicity forbidden in forum rules? No matter how many pages back I go, it's just people talking poo poo on this Jrod. Anyone who thinks there should be a state at all is an apostate, as far as every single influential thinker in the American libertarian movement is concerned. Unless they are sympathetic to white supremacists, in which case libertarianism suddenly becomes a "big tent" movement. So which is it? Are you a statist, or are you a white supremacist?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:Everyone is born without any money at all. New nations are formed without any money at all. Take 10, 100, 1000 people with absolutely no money or possessions and drop them into a jungle or something, do they all just magically die because they don't have currency? California is the hatching ground for Ronald Reagan, the libertarian cyborg created to infiltrate the government and destroy it. If you're going to complain about government not working properly, perhaps you should pick somewhere where there is not a huge plurality of your crypto-libertarian republican compatriots attempting to sabotage public works.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
I don't understand all these hateful words, even though I'm not myself a particularly doctrinaire libertarian. Incidentally, does government work at all? Maybe we should burn it to the ground and cede all control of society to benevolent kings who became billionaires by ripping off DOS
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Bill Gates gave a money, now Africans have a well. Maybe we should end Medicare and Social Security
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:I honestly did not intend to talk down to you. You just happen to be so low that even while I'm on the ground, you're looking up. There. Now I have insulted you too. Are you done being a dumbfuck? Or is this literally all you're capable of? Did you look down, and whisper "no"?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
I wish that libertarians could be made to understand how brutal primitive life was, how utterly correct Hobbes was. Now don't mistake me, modern life can manifest utter and colossal brutality, but at least I get to eat a sandwich. A sandwich, man. Then I put cheese on it. Do you have any idea, the pure concentration of agriculture and husbandry, the logistical wonders of transport and refrigeration? I bought it at a gas station. You have a spear without even a stone point on it, you broke a branch off of a tree to try and hunt a tapir. You think he didn't hear you coming?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Well not like "nothing" nothing. Just like a few cans of spam, and a stainless steel knife, and a tent, and let me see what else I can loot from society before declaring my island do-over with my statist ill-gotten gains.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I actually think that you can trace the whole "all the joy that comes from helping someone instead of joylessly having men with guns distribute money so people are merely left not starving" comes out of a weird Protestant way of thinking, where the point of charitable giving is its benefit to the giver, on a spiritual level. Or taking entirely the wrong message from the Didache: quote:Woe to him who receives; for if one receives who has need, he is guiltless; but he who receives not having need shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what. And coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape from there until he pays back the last penny. And also concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give. Do you really need secondary education or a refrigerator, hmmmmmm?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd also like to have this particular question answered since it has been pretty much ignored even though I have brought it up multiple times before. Kant literally Did Not Get Out Much
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:"The people as a whole" don't act, though. Only individuals act. People can agree to act in a similar manner but their collective actions are only moral if they each individually have the right to act in that manner. You are presuming that agents of the State are permitted to act in aggressive ways that other individuals aren't simply because they operate under the guise of "democratic consensus". Even if I were to concede that State action has a majority opinion behind the individual actions of its agents (I don't) this still violates Universalizability. If this were a valid moral principle, then democratic consensus should be sufficient to justify aggression outside of politics. The racist Klansmen would be justified in their lynching of a black man if they had majority support for such heinous acts in their communities. Similarly, the less fortunate ought to have the moral right to break into Bill Gates home, find his wallet and remove the desired money against his will. Yup, it's moral to take his money and it'd be moral to cut his head off if he didn't give it up. I'll stop reading here. e: and nothing Klansmen do can be moral, but it's moral to kill them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've already addressed this but because you lack reading comprehension, I'll rephrase it. Or, the government can nationalize all health care, outlaw quack practices and clap sellers of unsafe "herbal medicines" in prison. Problem solved. No buying and selling any more, only bureaucrats to administer proven medications.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The consumer is responsible for that profit. Profits and losses on a free market reflect consumer preferences and relay information to entrepreneurs as to where to best allocate scarce resources in capital goods and various production processes. Yeah maybe before there was real computing power. A properly administrated centrally planned economy would work just fine now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
But you see, this vast number of deaths that wouldn't have happened was moral
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:A lot of people would agree with you that "drugs are bad". I don't necessarily agree with this. I believe that judicious use of marijuana and other substances can have profound and sustained beneficial effects. But putting that aside, the fallacy is in thinking that things we would consider "bad" should be illegal. You accept that drug prohibition doesn't really deter drug use, but you ought to stick to a consistent moral principle. People own their bodies and therefore they have the right to put what they want into their bodies. Should it be illegal to sell radium water?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is an argument that is particularly insulting. I've been persuaded over the years of the correctness of the libertarian position and this fact means that all I do is "intellectually steal and copy from other people"? Everything I've ever written here are my own words YOU'RE LYING
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
jrod doesn't understand the labor theory of value? What's that? no libertarian does? And you couldn't get that understanding into them no matter how much lube you used?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
LOL jrod "just asked questions" about lean. I had either forgotten that or pushed it out of my mind. jrodefeld I wish you lacked even one thing in common with white supremacists.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
A furtive negro in my subdivision? Check his pockets for tea
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
e: wrong thread LOL
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I will explain that post though. I posted that in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman thread when that story was in the news. It was very early on and none of us had all the facts. I was reacting to the point that people on the left were immediately jumping to certain conclusions about the incident without the facts necessary to make such conclusions. People were falling all over themselves to paint Trayvon as a boy scout and a perfect citizen who nobody had any reason to be suspicious of. I thought that there was more to this story and that is what that post was about. AKA you jumped to conclusions, and did so in a manner congruent with the beliefs of the white supremacist philosophers you venerate (like Lew Rockwell and Hans-Hermann Hoppe).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 19:15
|
|