tbp posted:

I didn't confuse it at all.

Nessus posted:

I think the relevant words were "Hey, can I be rendered immune to probation so I can see if I can top the ignored-list chart"

AstheWorldWorlds posted:

Yeah that is fine, care to give your opinion on what socialism is?

tbp posted:

Common control of production, robust redistribution of wealth, of course the core tenants of a decent life provided (healthcare, transportation, food, etc.) by a central organization, a planned economy, any many more but I'm sure you can see where I am going here.

tbp posted:

Common control of production, robust redistribution of wealth, of course the core tenants of a decent life provided (healthcare, transportation, food, etc.) by a central organization, a planned economy, any many more but I'm sure you can see where I am going here.

AstheWorldWorlds posted:

So I am assuming you have conceded that it is not necessarily classless which further distinguishes it from communism?

Also, on the criteria: Yes, yes but the form varies wildly, not necessarily by a central organization, and market socialism is a thing.

SedanChair posted:

What makes any of that unsustainable or impractical?

tbp posted:

A quick google search indicates that many definitions of socialism include classlessness. And, should we be returning to my original point, even if that specification removed, I still think it is wildly unlikely we will see any robust socialist states during any of our lifetimes (especially ones that fulfill that criteria and continue to move toward the "ideal" rather than away into deregulation, etc.)

Though I think socialism is better than the alternatives I do think there are definitely dangers associated with it that I've not seen properly addressed, but I would be very willing to have that opinion changed should anyone be interested in speaking on it.

quote:

Great lives make great biographies. If only this were always true. One problem is that many biographies, including very long books, are written about the mediocre, or even the boring (think of politicians). Another problem is that so often a hash is made of the effort to explain an interesting life. I am happy to report that Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism by Jörg Guido Hülsmann is a great biography of a great life. More precisely, this book tells the story of the great ideas, generated by a great mind, in the context of the life of a very good man, Ludwig von Mises.

To write about this book one must consider readers as two kinds of people; those who have read Human Action and those who have not. For those who have read Mises' magnum opus, Last Knight will hold a special place in their libraries, probably on the shelf next to Human Action. To have read Human Action implies that a person is aware of and understands Austrian economics. Furthermore, the normal response to this effort (it must be admitted that it is not an easy read) is a paradigm shift in thought, if not life. Certainly all aspects of economics and politics are then understood in a fresh light; such that events of the day that were once an incomprehensible blur come into sharp focus, and the myths and lies of the ruling class become as obvious as Pinocchio's nose, or more aptly, the emperor's new clothes. For these people Last Knight quenches the thirst for knowledge about the man, his personality, life, and times. It is also a wonderful history of ideas, depicting the paths to (Menger and Böhm-Bawerk) and from (Hayek and Rothbard) Human Action. I have already seen that this can be a controversial exercise among those who claim to be Austrian economists but well worth the effort. The milieu of teachers, colleagues, and students around Mises, especially in old Vienna (before WWI) and contemporary New York (50s and 60s) are fascinating. Mises really was a man of Vienna, and then late in life, of New York. Readers who already are part of the Austrian school will dream of attending the Mises seminars evoked by Hülsmann. Mises the person is an inspiration through his moral and physical courage, and his persistent and overriding quest for truth. But it must also be admitted that he was a bit of an odd fellow. Mises relationships as husband, son, bother, teacher, friend, colleague, and occasional adversary are interesting to those of us who care so much about his work.

For those who have not read Human Action, Last Knight makes a great primer for the ideas that comprise Austrian economics. All of the key ideas are discussed in a very approachable way that modern readers can readily grasp.

Of course for many a 1000 page primer might be as daunting as the original, but I can attest that it is very readable; I could not put it down. I should say, I had to put it down occasionally to rest my arms because it is a physically big book. However, the production values are excellent (I especially appreciated the attached cloth book mark) making it easy on the eyes, and at a very reasonable price, easy on the wallet. The history of writing and publishing the book is also of interest. The efforts of the publisher, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, are part of the continuing story of Mises' ideas. The saga of Mises' papers alone, Vienna, Berlin, to Moscow, tells much about the history of ideas in the 20th century.

Even the most positive book review must include some criticism. In this case my only quibble is that the book is too short. I still want to know more about Mises the man, his times, and his ideas. I hope to read more from Dr. Hülsmann in the future

AstheWorldWorlds posted:

Well in a traditional sense classlessness is the goal of left socialism but it doesn't mean that it is necessarily classless. Like I said earlier it is usually considered to be an overarching goal of socialism that the society works to achieve. As far as dangers go literally any social and economic system will have potential dangers, but would you mind elaborating on what specific angers you think are present?

Sublimer posted:

Out of these types of libertarians, which ones typically support (And supported before it was politically acceptable) gay marriage? I'm pretty sure the libertarian conservatives just want to leave it up to the states to decide, but I'm not sure about the others.

Chalets the Baka posted:

How can you be unsure of what the "correct" answer is in a situation where there is no correct answer? You already confused socialism with communism earlier (even despite claiming you knew what they were) so perhaps the issue here is that you're just regular old "unsure". The type of socialism bandied about in D&D is usually democratic socialism, which is a fairly conservative form of socialism and isn't outside the realm of reality; a lot of the OECD member countries have in fact successfully implemented socialist policy, proving that not only does it look good on paper, it looks good in practice too.

You're also doing an incredibly good job of avoiding debate and discussion in the debate and discussion forum.

Sublimer posted:

Out of these types of libertarians, which ones typically support (And supported before it was politically acceptable) gay marriage? I'm pretty sure the libertarian conservatives just want to leave it up to the states to decide, but I'm not sure about the others.

tbp posted:

pedantic

El Scotch posted:

Hey America, thanks for spreading your drat Freeman crap up north.

On the plus side, you've given us some great decisions as a result.

quote:

“You should get out of town”, the man said.
And so began the journey that resulted in my path intersecting with Matthew Duncan’s path. And thence to these reasons, with a slight detour through territory that might have confused Lewis Carroll.

TheQat posted:

Holy crap the way the second one is written is wonderful. Are a lot of Canadian court opinions like this?

quote:

“You should get out of town”, the man said.
And so began the journey that resulted in my path intersecting with Matthew Duncan’s path. And thence to these reasons, with a slight detour through territory that might have confused Lewis Carroll.

I suppose that I should clarify that there was no menace in the man’s directive to me to get out of town. He was a friend and a colleague in two careers. His suggestion had been that he and I should change positions for a fortnight, giving him exposure to the realities of the northern reaches of Toronto, while I would enjoy a similar change of environment in the more sylvan environs of Niagara Region. I might even see a few plays in the evenings, he pointed out.

And thus I came to meet Mr. Duncan.

At heart, Mr. Duncan’s case was unremarkable. A minor alleged Highway Traffic Act offence led to a police-citizen interaction in the parking lot of Mr. Duncan’s apartment building in the wee hours of the morning. A request that Mr. Duncan produce his licence led to an alleged refusal, which led to an attempt to arrest him, which led to a struggle, which was captured on a very poor quality video taken on a mobile phone, at the end of which Mr. Duncan found himself being placed under arrest for allegedly assaulting a police officer. Nothing unusual in all that. The bread and butter of provincial court.

Of course, I hadn’t counted on the freemen on the land.

Mr. Duncan was self-represented. Other than a mildly annoying disinclination on his part to stand when addressing the court (although he did stand when questioning witnesses), he was a rather pleasant young man. Unfortunately, he was a rather pleasant young man whose mind was filled with what my late father would have called “notions”.

It has been said that, given enough time, ten thousand monkeys with typewriters would probably eventually replicate the collected works of William Shakespeare. Sadly, when human beings are let loose with computers and internet access, their work product does not necessarily compare favourably to the aforementioned monkeys with typewriters.

Thus it was that the trial began with Mr. Duncan objecting to us proceeding on the basis that I had no jurisdiction over him. Mr. Duncan provided me with an “affidavit of truth”, a rather substantial volume that appeared to me to be the result of somebody doing a Google search for terms like “jurisdiction” and the like and then cobbling them together in such a way that it makes James Joyce’s Ulysses look like an easy read. This hodgepodge of irrelevancies relied upon by Mr. Duncan was one of the misbegotten fruits of the internet. Finding it was a waste of Mr. Duncan’s time; printing it was a waste of trees and my reading it was a waste of my time and public money. With that volume as his starting point, Mr. Duncan spent some time explaining to me that I had no jurisdiction to try him, that he was not a citizen of the province or the country, that he was not a person as defined by my definitions, that there was no contract between him and me to give me status to sit in judgment over him and so on. As I have said, Mr. Duncan struck me as a perfectly pleasant young man, but on this issue he seemed a bit obtuse. I suppose that if perfectly pleasant young men weren’t led astray from time to time by drugs, alcohol, broken hearts or rubbish on the internet, then the dockets of provincial court wouldn’t be quite as plump as they usually are.

tbp posted:

My primary concern would be with the overarching nature and power of the state.

rudatron posted:

Power structures will still exist sans a strong state, because power vacuums don't stay vacuums for long. The alternative to the 'tyranny of the majority' isn't some society of total liberty (which is ten times as utopian as communism), but a 'tyranny of a minority'.

Silver2195 posted:

I don't know about tbp, but I'm not quite cynical enough to think that relative balance between majority rule and minority rights, or between power structures in general, is impossible. A strong state is necessary, but only to a point. (Talking in generalities here because others seem to be.)

Davethulhu posted:

SedanChair posted:

That's not a very good argument. Are you saying that the ability to defend yourself is somehow "the imminent threat of violence"?

e: I mean without the obligatory "property" reference I would basically agree with that guy.

Jastiger posted:

No, i'm not saying the ability to defend yourself is the threat of violence. I'm saying the open display of force is a threat of violence.

If I walk around with guns pointed everywhere and say "Hey, can I have your last Pepsi, SedanChair?" are you more likely to give it to me or tell me to gently caress off?

SedanChair posted:

To gently caress off, I suppose. But you didn't mention anything about open carry in your statement, just guns.

Jastiger posted:

It becomes less about defense of their selves, and more about a show of force to deter anyone from messin' with em. That is different.

tbp posted:

This is generally what I agree with, however I believe I am unable to effectively speak to the specificities unfortunately and would very much so like to discuss such a thing.

Silver2195 posted:

I don't know about tbp, but I'm not quite cynical enough to think that relative balance between majority rule and minority rights, or between power structures in general, is impossible. A strong state is necessary, but only to a point. (Talking in generalities here because others seem to be.)

SedanChair posted:

That's a weird definition of "force." But I mean other than open carry (which is just impolite) and brandishing (which is illegal) what's wrong with showing that you're not worth messing with? I mean it's OK to lift weights and be strong, isn't it?

In any case, regardless of where you fall on the issue of guns I don't see what this has to do with critiques of libertarianism.

rudatron posted:

Then...discuss it? Use your words my friend.

tbp posted:

Times I have tried to in the past have led directly to South Park quotes.

tbp posted:

Times I have tried to in the past have led directly to South Park quotes.

Though I suppose it doesn't hurt to try again. I think that the mockable part of internet libertarianism (the bizarrely idealistic and naive kind derided in this thread) shares many similarities with the same kind of socialism expressed in this subforum (see the relatively recent "We must kill all bankers!" thing).

Pope Guilty posted:

Contemplate why.

rudatron posted:

Umm...I don't agree? I also don't think that 'idealistic' is a descriptive term, because anyone can say that about their opponents on any economic issue (the other is unreasonable, I am reasonable etc. etc.).

tbp posted:

Hm, perhaps it would be better if I were more clear, apologies. When I wrote idealistic, I meant in sort of a wish-fulfillment way. In this sense, the libertarian would like a government-less society (for the most part) in order to have what he believes would be, simply, a better society for the people. I think these statements are not surreptitious for the most of them, and it comes from a genuine place however misguided. The naive error here lies with the method of achieving this, which is repealing all the hallmarks they perceive as threatening to this ideal (social safety nets always chief amongst them, which to be honest I would place down to rhetoric more than any meaningful examination)

The socialism espoused often here also has a similarly idealistic tone in that the end result is simply a much better society for the people. Instead of repealing social programs, the avenue discussed seems always to be some sort of mass violence and wish-fulfillment. Again, while I think the goal itself is noble and genuine, I think there is an immature amount of examination done on the route to that end goal. Identifying possible pitfalls in the process seems particularly washed over.

Were I able to steer the world in any reasonable direction I would like to enforce incremental, but accelerated social programs that would, in a relatively useful/realistic timeframe, increase the QoL of those amongst our own that have it the worst. Unfortunately I am also a bit soured from the past few years, especially the relatively tepid end-results that come from what seem like Herculean efforts in my own country. I can see the appeal in both the libertarian and the D&D socialist for some sort of revolution, but I would posit that in this stage any such event would be dangerous and likely ineffective for reaching that originally specified end goal.

SedanChair posted:

So wait, when I asked "like medicare and social security?" couldn't you have said "that's not the kind of socialism that's unrealistic or unsustainable, in fact we should fight for it"? I think we got off on this whole jag because you're not drawing a clear enough distinction between half-satirical lf-posting and social democracy. You sound like a big fan of social democratic reform, though an understandably dejected one.

Jastiger posted:

I say it has a lot to do with it because showing that you have a massive force with which to defend yourself is in and of itself a form of force.

A gun on the table is an object on a table. A gun in the hand is a weapon that can kill. It fundamentally changes the person holding it and the gun itself because it is no longer a stagnant object, but a characteristic of a person.