|
Pictured: Freedom!
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
jrod, please help me explain to these people that they're really better off respecting property rights, rather than trying to steal British oil. They just don't understand how important property is!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Stupid socialists, let me tell you what's wrong with "democracy"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:In fact you seem to miss the point communal and socialist policies. When you bring up a person in starving in Africa who has a loaf of break the only two choices you think are available are leaving him with the bread or taking some of his bread. You don't see that the kind of policies you are railing against do not see either choice as acceptable, with the option of "Tax some rich fucker a bit more money and pay for this poor starving guy to have two loaves of bread and some chicken, some clean water, healthcare and education for his children" being the preferred go to option. I think the preferred go-to option is actually to steal the bread, then sell it back to the guy while you bury his family in a mass grave.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Pictured: an abstract and vague assertion
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
It is crystal clear to a libertarian that there is no meaningful distinction between property rights and human rights.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
The libertarian is an idiot stooge who sucks Power's dick in exchange for the illusion of intellectual clout. He is happy to advocate doing away with "democracy" and elevating wealth and then say 'tut-tut' when student protestors are gunned down in the process of realizing that vision. The academic who smokescreens a genocide has the same blood on his hands as its architect. The only reason jrod doesn't is because he is too insignificant to have that much of an effect, but let's not pretend that he wouldn't jump at the chance.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
The only way he can understand the principle of bodily autonomy is through the notion of self-ownership i.e. he's already utterly convinced that people are essentially no more than pieces of property, and all that's left is to quibble about who owns them. The only reason he's not a member of a junta death squad is because none are presently convenient.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
You might be worried that these men are about to coerce you: But no need to worry! Turns out they're private contractors, so all your interactions with them will be intrinsically voluntary! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/us/before-shooting-in-iraq-warning-on-blackwater.html Edit: Phew, it's a good thing they have an incentive to do a good job, unlike these 'police' I hear so much about. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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 This doesn't really signify much though. Rawls was a Kantian, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you go from utilitarianism to libertarianism? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Show me an honest libertarian and I'll show you a drat chump.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Did jrod ever come out explicitly in favor of the DRO-centric society, or did we just latch onto it from HHH and jrod never bothered to deny it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Ugh they're so hard to keep straight
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Jrod you don't understand the categorical imperative. Stop misusing Kant's legacy. e: I mean, the most prominent modern Kantian political philosopher is Rawls. This should give you pause Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you suggesting that colonialism has something to do with libertarianism? The same libertarians who hold up Switzerland as the model of how a society ought to interact with the rest of the world (complete neutrality, non-intervention)? The point is that libertarianism is a sham ideology; a thin veneer of anti-interventionism to run interference for capital-accumulating international adventures. Self-identified libertarians overwhelmingly vote Republican. At best, jrod, you're a chump. At worst, complicit in the American plundering of the rest of the world. Sorry to break it to ya bud
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Well both of those were chartered by a government or something so therefore they don't count, clearly. Furthermore-*long, slow cabbage fart* Is jrod advocating for the immediate revocation of all corporate charters? That'd be something to see. How do libertarians feel about limited liability?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:lol you can't even spell Immanuel despite having copy/pasted fro the loving wikipedia page, jesus loving christ Additionally, for Kant, the object of universalizability is a maxim, not an act, where a maxim is understood to be a two-part psychological entity consisting of an intention to act a certain way, and a reason for acting that way. The upshot here is that to criticise policy on Kantian grounds requires an analysis of the reasons for adopting that policy, which is anathema for libertarians. Anyone who had actually read the second critique or the groundwork would be well aware that Kant sees the threat of punishment by an authority as essential to a properly functioning society.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I seem to remember jrodefeld being opposed to limited liability, but it's been a while and I only ever read about 40% of his posts before my ant-like attention span demands my intellect elsewhere. But wouldn't that mean the end of capitalism? It's not a mistake that the emergence of joint-stock companies coincided with with the emergence of limited liability as a legal concept. The only alternatives to limited liability that have ever been tried are guild-based and collectivized economies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
If someone is really smelly, are they aggressing on me because I didn't consent to smell them, or am I aggressing on them because they did not consent to being smelled by me?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Straight up, the suffering of the poor does not matter. The sanctity of private property and its protection from any kind of tax or regulation is literally the only metric for morality in JRod's world. Deontological ethics mean never having to say you're sorry (for starving your workers). Again, deontic ethics and the tradition of Kant gave us Rawls. jrod's ineptitude can't be blamed on overzealous adherence to a particular moral principle, but rather on the lack of any such principle. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:In which we learn that even the meaning of terms like "profit" escapes this Randian ubermensch. We have no use for semantics where we're going! Nor for syntax, really, judging by his prose.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This number is grossly disingenuous (and deliciously ironic considering how you accused us of that) because it fails to take into account the much larger group of people who would directly benefit from proposed minimum wage increases. Not to mention the number of people who will benefit indirectly by having stronger bargaining positions from which to negotiate their salaries. The 4% number is a transparent ploy to try and hand-wave the issue of stagnant and sub-living wages by implying that it's an issue that affects a tiny group of people instead of a massive chunk of the population. Also isn't 4% of the workforce like 6 million people?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, this would absolutely make you a bigot. That's like the exact literal definition of bigotry you ignorant loving slime! I was all set to start talking about Bayesian statistics and what happens when you have minuscule priors, but honestly this is a much better response.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Libertarians are incapable of eating jelly. The philosophy of individual liberty is incompatible with all forms of jams, preserves, and marmalades. A libertarian sees all berries not as members of fruit spreads, but as individuals who should be judged by their texture and sweetness, just as my personal hero Dr Martin Luther King Jr. advocated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:The weird thing is that, in many ways, jrode's definition of aggression isn't even really that different in the libertopia he envisions. Might be the most fundamental though. Without a coherent definition of coercion everything else falls apart. That's the trouble with trying to work everything out from first principles.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Wherein jrod stakes out a bold, but not unexpected, pro-Javert stance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
I am struggling to see what philosophical machinery jrod could possibly appeal to in order to say that we have a moral obligation to advance the well-being of our fellow humans, or to say that it would be wrong for the store owner to sue the bread thief for restitution. The only metaethical framework he hasn't outright rejected is the NAP, and the relevant moral conclusions just don't seem to follow from that principle. Seems like he's pretty much just using the NAP to justify ad-hoc whatever conclusions he already decided he likes. Guys, I think Libertarians might not be reasoning out their whole ideology from first principles after all! (gasp!)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Wait what? Kant explicitly said that it is always wrong to lie no matter what, even to save a life. And also that masturbation is worse than suicide and that bastards should be killed. Pretty much every contemporary Kant scholar thinks he misapplied his own ethical system in a lot of places.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Caros posted:Closing arguments. If jrodefeld returns for even a single additional comment his general poo poo posting will have outlasted my marriage. I'm still worried about this 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
jrod look what you've done
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So I'll just ask this question because I am genuinely curious. Forgetting the historical gold standard, why don't the left support a mechanism which limits the expansion of the money supply in order to limit inflation and curtail the enrichment of the corporate class and the endless expansion of the State? This, to me, seems like a very Progressive cause since this is one of the biggest drivers of inequality and corporate privilege. A lot of leftists would probably support significant democratic oversight of a central bank. And I think you'll find that to the extent that someone thinks the private ownership of capital should be abolished altogether, they're not going to desperately looking for some mechanism by which to limit capital accumulation by the wealthy. Fixing the money supply to some commodity only reduces democratic control of the economy. This seems fairly clear.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
Is that a Dave Mustaine side project? Sounds rad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 02:43
|
|