|
Pohl posted:Where did the OP go? We were having such an interesting conversation and then he just vanished. VitalSigns posted:Turns out, the superiority of the white man can be proved a priori.
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
If I may be so bold as to make a useful comparison for those un-ironically trying out libertarian arguments: Argumentation ethics is to HHH as Lebensraum is to AH; justifications for doing horrible poo poo. Use either one to support a position, you're gonna have a bad time.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Where did the OP go? We were having such an interesting conversation and then he just vanished. Maybe he found out he was living on stolen land and is voluntarily returning it and all his former possessions to the rightful owners of that land?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:Maybe he found out he was living on stolen land and is voluntarily returning it and all his former possessions to the rightful owners of that land? Still posting in D&D, so I think we scared him off. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Caros posted:Still posting in D&D, so I think we scared him off. I saw that he just posted in another thread. Running off is not the morally correct thing to do, however. He was so excited for this thread, too. VV Beat ya! 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
^^^^ I consider the above post to be a violation of the NAP, and the poster should be dealt with accordingly.  Caros posted:Still posting in D&D, so I think we scared him off. Well that's not very moral of him. 
Ernie Muppari fucked around with this message at 03:02 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:Maybe he found out he was living on stolen land and is voluntarily returning it and all his former possessions to the rightful owners of that land? Maybe he realized his body is composed of cells that originated in his parents and were obtained by the non-voluntary acts of ejaculation and egg production. He's currently dividing his body in two to return these coercively-obtained possessions to their rightful owners. I mean, if ownership of your body is an a priori fact...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
I can't keep up with this at all anymore (especially since this was a queer day off from work). So, I'll leave it at this: very little got done here. I'm still not convinced that ancap-ism is wrong, but if you want to throw some other positions at me to look at, I promise to give them a fair shake and report back (if the thread is still around). I just want everyone to know that its not that I refuse to consider change, but that I'd like to be careful about it.It would be nice to find a better system, I just don't know if it exists (so point me towards one if you like). Also, I'm still going to post in US Pol, but hopefully in a way that doesn't spawn this insanity.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
How about a system, any system, that doesn't encourage people to become despotic warlords?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
absolem posted:I can't keep up with this at all anymore (especially since this was a queer day off from work). So, I'll leave it at this: very little got done here. I'm still not convinced that ancap-ism is wrong, but if you want to throw some other positions at me to look at, I promise to give them a fair shake and report back (if the thread is still around). I just want everyone to know that its not that I refuse to consider change, but that I'd like to be careful about it.It would be nice to find a better system, I just don't know if it exists (so point me towards one if you like).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
My moral system can be generalized as: a) Treat others how I'd like to be treated b) Try to make the world a better place for everyone, especially for the people who are really struggling c) Rules a and b can be ignored when trying to receive more blowjobs
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
You're entire belief system is based on a teenager level understanding of the world and sociopathy towards your fellow humans. You came in the politics thread telling everyone else they have no understanding of economics think about this, in all this arguing have you posted a single piece of evidence or fact or has it all been "no u are wrong because I say so"
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Ancap philosophy essentially boils down to 'violation of property rights, which essentially means violation of the current status quo of distribution, is the ultimate crime morally and basically anything else is preferable'. They dress it up in pseudointellectual horseshit to distract from the fact that that's sociopathic and gonzo ridiculous on its face. ok, thread over, let's all go home now icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:16 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:You're entire belief system is based on a teenager level understanding of the world and sociopathy towards your fellow humans. You came in the politics thread telling everyone else they have no understanding of economics think about this, in all this arguing have you posted a single piece of evidence or fact or has it all been "no u are wrong because I say so" poo poo man, it isn't like most of us in this forum have degrees in social sciences. I mean, really... how many of us had to take years of econ classes and then suffer through years of stats and then discuss policy and econ as it related to society? No one loving has that knowledge.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Pohl posted:poo poo man, it isn't like most of us in this forum have degrees in social sciences. I mean, really... how many of us had to take years of econ classes and then suffer through years of stats and then discuss policy and econ as it related to society? No one loving has that knowledge. Your years in schooling are irrelevant you should just know how the economy works through "common sense" I mean have you ever heard of "supply and demand"
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
absolem posted:I can't keep up with this at all anymore (especially since this was a queer day off from work). So, I'll leave it at this: very little got done here. I'm still not convinced that ancap-ism is wrong, but if you want to throw some other positions at me to look at, I promise to give them a fair shake and report back (if the thread is still around). I just want everyone to know that its not that I refuse to consider change, but that I'd like to be careful about it.It would be nice to find a better system, I just don't know if it exists (so point me towards one if you like). Read Rawls. Many of the people in this forum and many academics agree with the system of ethics he lays out. It's not a priori, and makes no claim to be, but at least the applications of it seem to make basic sense. Edit: Familiarizing yourself with Marx is obviously important. A little reading into behavioural economics will show how ridiculous even the axioms of an-cap philosophy is. I recommend "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman since it is new and designed as an introduction for laymen. Ha-Joon Chang is a heterodox economist and he writes very good, short books on some of the mistakes of neoclassical economics. Further Edit: I like Joseph Stiglitz, too. His work investigating information asymmetry is pretty pivotal, and he also writes books for laymen. Shibby0709 fucked around with this message at 03:34 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
absolem posted:I can't keep up with this at all anymore (especially since this was a queer day off from work). So, I'll leave it at this: very little got done here. I'm still not convinced that ancap-ism is wrong, but if you want to throw some other positions at me to look at, I promise to give them a fair shake and report back (if the thread is still around). I just want everyone to know that its not that I refuse to consider change, but that I'd like to be careful about it.It would be nice to find a better system, I just don't know if it exists (so point me towards one if you like). No one expects you to reply to every post here, just pick the one that interests you the most and reply to that. I never said you couldn't post in the other thread, I just suggested that you keep the discussion in this thread or the other libertarian thread. I'm sorry if I came across as an rear end in a top hat. Well, I am an rear end in a top hat. Don't take it personally.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
You're making this way, way more complicated than it needs to be. Don't bother telling him to read Rawls or Marx or whatever the gently caress, just make him confront the fact that supporting property rights over human life is intuitively wrong and hosed up in the abstract. The great thing about the a priori bit is all you have to do is destroy the foundations in the abstract and the whole thing immediately implodes. By engaging woth the shell of pseudointellectual garbage they put out you legitimatize it. The assumptions it's based on are flatly wrong and this is apparant to all people who aren't sociopaths if you present it that way.
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:04 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Your years in schooling are irrelevant you should just know how the economy works through "common sense" I mean have you ever heard of "supply and demand" They taught me supply and demand, but then I had a few semesters of 'social theory', and gently caress, I don't know what to think. They taught me all about Marx ,Durkheim and Weber and Mills. I've got this Sociological Imagination now, and I can't make it stop. Edit: I know you asked me a rhetorical question, I just wanted to toss out some names that didn't involve assholes. I posted this in the other thread after he started this thread. I think it fits. I couldn't believe he would start a thread, but I told him to go for it. The OP is the smiley of course, I knew what would happen. Pohl posted:Haha, I can't believe that loving worked. Pohl fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Ancap philosophy essentially boils down to 'violation of property rights, which essentially means violation of the current status quo of distribution, is the ultimate crime morally and basically anything else is preferable'. They dress it up in pseudointellectual horseshit to distract from the fact that that's sociopathic and gonzo ridiculous on its face. If one was picking a form of libertarianism for batshit insanity value, an-cap is close to the most-est. I mean, it's a literal oxymoron; taking a leftwing/communistic philosophy and going "gently caress lets do a complete 180 and deepthroat the monied elite so hard but barely change the name". Why not pick a fairly sane and humanistic form of libertarianism, like Georgism?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:What do you even call this ideology? Fascist Libertarianism? Corvinus posted:Feudal capitalism (capitalists are the nobility) with fascist overtones. It's right-wing ideology, distilled to its most simple form. The owners have absolute and legitimate right to their power, they are virtuous and noble and the hierarchy they sit on top of is the good and natural order of things. The powerless are wicked and sinful and deserve suffering, their place is to serve the powerful.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Shibby0709 posted:Read Rawls. Many of the people in this forum and many academics agree with the system of ethics he lays out. It's not a priori, and makes no claim to be, but at least the applications of it seem to make basic sense. Thanks for the recommendations, actually! I've been looking for some things to add to my reading list.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You're making this way, way more complicated than it needs to be. Don't bother telling him to read Rawls or Marx or whatever the gently caress, just make him confront the fact that supporting property rights over human life is intuitively wrong and hosed up in the abstract. The great thing about the a priori bit is all you have to do is destroy the foundations in the abstract and the whole thing immediately implodes. By engaging woth the shell of pseudointellectual garbage they put out you legitimatize it. The assumptions it's based on are flatly wrong and this is apparant to all people who aren't sociopaths if you present it that way. Basically yeah, this. absolem, ask yourself why anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Oh man, for some reason all the mentions of Hoppe made me think people were just mistyping Hobbes for some reason I couldn't understand. The truth has led to a much more entertaining place.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Oh man, for some reason all the mentions of Hoppe made me think people were just mistyping Hobbes for some reason I couldn't understand. The truth has led to a much more entertaining place.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
This is a chapter I like to give people. I think it is one of the best I've ever read on rights and it's a crime that Rorty died a pariah from academic philosophy (an indictment of academic philosophy much more than Rorty IMO). It lays out a pragmatist approach to ethics and explains why the pragmatist approach is better than any bullshit search for objectively true axioms could ever be.http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/siap/readings/rorty_rationality_sentimentality.pdf Disclaimer: I have two degrees in philosophy so the above was stated in a thoroughly self-deprecating mode. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 04:45 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
I've never read Hoppes but the name makes me thirsty.Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Hobbes is basically the anti-libertarian so it'd be the weirdest typo. I made the same mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Hobbes is basically the anti-libertarian so it'd be the weirdest typo. I 'unno dude, the line between advocating for Randian Supermen to be given full control over society because the drat dirty takers are inherently inferior, and claiming that humanity needs monarchs because plebes are just too stupid and selfish, is pretty fuzzy.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Is there a good philosophy must read texts list anywhere? All of this stuff is highly interesting to me but since my sum total of philosophy knowledge is one semester of babby's first logic class and a political theories class, a lot of this is flying over my head.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is there a good philosophy must read texts list anywhere? All of this stuff is highly interesting to me but since my sum total of philosophy knowledge is one semester of babby's first logic class and a political theories class, a lot of this is flying over my head. Hoppe appears to be guy trying to be a philosopher and not understanding exactly what it is we do, arguing badly, and basically being a dumbass, but why he's wrong about logic (from the tiny bit I know of his work, he's so wrong that he should be ashamed) is actually rather complicated, so there's no simple thing to read to refute him. I'm also pretty sure most academic libertarians don't engage with Austrians. EDIT, since I'm bored: The basic error is that there's a difference between an argument (in the strict logical sense, being a set of premises and a conclusion) and an argument had between people. If I believe P and present not-P as a premise in an argument for Q, I can be accused of hypocrisy but that doesn't undermine my argument for Q. Essentially, Hoppe thinks that the exchange of reasons must obey Gricean maxims. I don't say things I don't believe, say things relevant, etc. And that is actually true. But Hoppe makes an error of thinking of inferring things from my acceptance of those Gricean maxims. He thinks that the denial of the principle of non-aggression pragmatically contradicts the rules of argument. First, it doesn't, since it doesn't entail anything that conflicts with the Gricean maxims. Second, if it did, it wouldn't say anything about the argument I give since it could still be valid; a pragmatic contradiction is one that conflicts with the Gricean maxims, but it doesn't say anything about the content of what I say. Hoppe doesn't think of it in terms of Grice, but apparently in terms of more robust Habermasian-style norms. But Habermas wouldn't think that a fundamental presupposition is the principle of non-aggression; it's just not supposed by our conversational practice. There's nothing in Habermas to indicate that validity in the Habermasian sense is undermined by a rejection of the principle of non-aggression. There's more going on, apparently, in Hoppe, but I can't be bothered to read his work. But really, it's a complex error that takes more time to refute than it takes to defend. A proper understanding of Gricean maxims would clear it up but that's just too much for libertarians, apparently. Also what about the water abselom. You never answered my water hypothetical. I want to know if you think it's okay that I steal your water or not. Lives hang in the balance. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 05:34 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Again our Hero, Jastiger, is late to the party. A question. Why are advocates of property rights and libertarian folk all about getting rid of estate taxes and stuff like that, yet, I don't see them advocating for all debts and wrongs to be passed on. Its ok if I hand my kids tax free a billion bucks, half the state of Arkansas, and all the rights to my company TAX FREE. But oh ho ho ho ho ho no, I can set up a legal frame work to absolve them of all debts? Why should that be allowed? How does a libertarian handle the debts in their no tax, no government world?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is there a good philosophy must read texts list anywhere? All of this stuff is highly interesting to me but since my sum total of philosophy knowledge is one semester of babby's first logic class and a political theories class, a lot of this is flying over my head. I don't know poo poo about philosophy, I just know when a dude comes in and is like quote:Private property entitles its owner to discriminate: to exclude or include others from his property and to determine the conditions of entry and inclusion. Both inclusion and exclusion have associated costs and benefits for the owner, which he weighs against each other when he makes his decision. In any case, the owner’s decision is motivated by his concern for his property and by reason. His reasoning may turn out correct and he reaches his goal or it may turn out wrong, but in any case, the owner’s is a reasoned decision.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Apparently homogeneity results in diversity! SCIENCE 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
 quote:From a purely logical point of view, libertarianism is compatible with each and every aesthetic and artistic style or judgment. I am not the first one to notice, for instance, that famous libertarian Ayn Rand’s artistic work displays a striking stylistic resemblance to Socialist Soviet Realism. Similarly, I have seen it possible to be a “perfect” libertarian and never aggress against anyone’s person or property, and yet be an all-around useless, unpleasant or even rotten fellow.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
There's really no point arguing with an unfalsifiable proposition, is there? Similar to the obnoxious "is there a god" debates we've had here before, it is literally impossible to prove this guy wrong because his philosophy denies proof. We all know this. Logical appeals will not work on him. He believes it with his gut. You get right down to it, and, like all libertarians, his core argument is justified by BECAUSE IT JUST FEELS RIGHT. We've been through this before. anyway, that is to say I'm doing something different. I would like people to outline principles running counter to the religion of the free market. What do I believe? All men are created equal, and endowed with certain unalienable rights, among these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe we can do things as a people to ensure this for everyone, but it takes trust, hard work, and vigilance against the bastards who will deny these rights. Property is not, in my view, all that important. The true moral unit is a human life, and, hopefully the quality of that life. Coercion seems pathetic to me as any sort of moral dilemma next to millions of people dying of starvation while others have more than enough. There has to be a balance between allowing people to make great achievements, and giving everyone an equal shot at a good life. When bad things can be prevented from happening to people, they should be prevented (with the exception of punishment for criminals, but that should be greatly reformed as well, to focus on rehabilitation). Complaining about coercion is hosed up because life involves other people telling you what to do and asking things of you. This isn't an imposition, this is called being a human being.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
On his father and sworn enemy, Jürgen Habermasquote:Habermas was my principal philosophy teacher and Ph.D. advisor during my studies at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, from 1968-74. Through his seminars I became acquainted with British and American analytical philosophy. I read K. Popper, P. Feyerabend, L. Wittgenstein, G. Ryle, J.L. Austin, J. Searle, W.v.O. Quine, H. Putnam, N. Chomsky, J. Piaget. I discovered Paul Lorenzen and the Erlangen School and the work of K.O Apel. I still believe that this was a pretty good intellectual training.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
Also apparently he didn't learn anything from his intellectual training.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is there a good philosophy must read texts list anywhere? All of this stuff is highly interesting to me but since my sum total of philosophy knowledge is one semester of babby's first logic class and a political theories class, a lot of this is flying over my head. To hopefully lay some ground work, think of the body of philosophical work like the body of scientific work. There are identifiable fields, they sometimes overlap, sometimes things get updated or outdated, sometimes the refutation of something requires a serious technical understanding of the material surrounding the subject. Asking for philosophical must read texts is kind of like asking for scientific must read texts. Which field are you interested in and why? For example, Nozick was brought up in this thread with reference to his political/economic philosophical works. He's also done work in epistemology (theories of knowledge). Those two things are separate subjects, and while I don't doubt that a link could be drawn between the two, it's the same link that might be drawn between, say, quantum physics and biology. Knowing about the one isn't going to be super helpful in deciphering the other.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:No, there's no real big list. If you're interested in particular topics I bet I or someone else can give you a short list of things to read but if you're interested in political philosophy, my telling you to go read Kripke right the gently caress now wouldn't really help you in what you want to understand. Alright gotcha, from a brief glance through wikipedia utilitarianism seems to most reflect my views and beliefs so that seems like a pretty good starting point or is would that still be too broad?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Alright gotcha, from a brief glance through wikipedia utilitarianism seems to most reflect my views and beliefs so that seems like a pretty good starting point or is would that still be too broad? Utilitarianism is a good starting point. There's basically three major branches of ethics. Utility: Greatest good for the greatest number are what make actions good. Duty/Deontology: Duties derived from some place are what make actions good. Virtue: Actions that lead to the good life constructed in some way that it's not actually a consequence of those actions are what make actions good. (Virtue is fuzzy for me and I don't like it). They've all got various issues associated with them. There's a short story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, that raises one for Utility. The same sort of issue is in Brave New World, if you've ever read that. Other issues circle around defining exactly what good is (usually cashed out in terms of happiness/protection from harm) and who counts in that number. Buried alive fucked around with this message at 06:08 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 06:06
|
|