|
nutranurse posted:I've always wanted to ask a libertarian this (but I know few in real life because they're crazy fuckers and tend to be racist): Why would a minority want to forgo government protection of their rights in order to embrace the libertarian "get government out of everything so I can be a feudal lord" creed? I think it's an important question, as demographics begin to skew more in favor of non-whites libertarians will have to convince non-whites that their policies will actually benefit the traditionally disenfranchised. I don't think Libertarians really get to this point. At best, you get people like Rand Paul going to Howard University and other historically-black colleges and asking them "DID YOU KNOW LINCOLN WAS A REPUBLICAN TOO?  ". It's because they know Libertarianism doesn't work for minorities and blaagh people.Also  at the idea of a Libertarian genuinely caring about the disenfranchised. Don't you know they're bums and welfare mooches that need to be ground into paste to provide for the nutrition of the future captains of industry??? Look at you talking about benefiting the disenfranchised, that's hippie talk right there. What are you, some kind of tax-dollar thieving socialist?
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 03:55 on May 27, 2014 |
#
¿
May 27, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Wait wait wait so Rothbard's big idea here is to turn over the means of production to the workers? Like, he's advocating The Literal Definition of Socialism? That's utterly amazing. It's amazing how an ideology can pick up on all the right messages and facts but still come to such an utterly wrong interpretation and conclusion.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
What? You think a True Libertarian has time to deal with petty trivialities such as realistic expectations and rational decision-making? No wonder you don't want to join our Eden, your little brain cannot even comprehend the way we do things around here, pleb.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because it sounds like it'd be de facto legal to rob, beat, or kill them and no one will protect their lives or property or investigate crimes against them; and I'm really wondering what the Libertarian answer to prevent that is or why I should support a society like that where orphans are free game for rapists and murders, thanks! Deep down inside, past the rhetoric, a lot of conservative libertarians see the handicapped/infirm/etc as the excrement and discharge of humanity and would love to live in Libertopia to finally purge the undesirables who have subsisted so long by suckling on the teat of the State, using your "stolen" money to prop up the weak. Fulfill your deepest desires and power fantasies without anyone to say otherwise, like buying a nuke to finally glass Africa/Middle East or mowing down the disabled with a machine gun or slapping the poo poo out of your multiple wives and sex slaves to put them in their place. Stop trying to interpret libertarianism through the lens of compassion/humaneness; it makes a lot more sense when you look at it through a worldview of scorn, sociopathy, Social Darwinism, hierarchy, and hatred of others. [E]: Also, there seems to be a ton of rhetoric like "people SHOULDN'T be violent with one another due to respect for NAP". In theory, maybe, but people have been murdering and raping others with or without a State authority for a long, long time. So, if someone guns my kid down in Libertopia, do I have the right to kill him in return? What if I wanted to carry out traditional Chinese legalist policy by murdering three generations of the killer's clan? Couldn't another family member of the killer also justify murdering me for aggression? What stops the whole thing from devolving into Mad Max land where everyone decides to gently caress dealing with cumbersome DROs and just slaughter everyone in their territory to ensure their freedom from the control of DROs? Lastly, what do Libertarians make of failed states like Somalia or Afghanistan? They seem to have a lot of the same patterns such as violence and instability compared to anywhere else with a functioning state apparatus. Hmmmmmmm, makes you think. So many questions! 
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:More dumb questions, anarchies do not offer rights, if your Libertopia is something other than an anarchy, then the answer depends on how you are defining Libertopia. If you murdered three generations of someone's family, probably something would happen, what exactly would happen would depend on about a billion unstated details. Yes. The an-cap answer here is that most people don't want to live in Mad Max land, so they'll go through significant effort to avoid it, though clearly if enough people do want a Mad Max society, they can pull the rest down with them. Rhetorical questions are still A Thing in debates, although that might be a surprise to you personally. What I'm essentially asserting is that Libertopia (I'm presuming Libertarians are trying to build a new stable society) would naturally devolve into anarchy whether people want anarchy or not. The structure is not there to discourage Mad Max-style anarchism; in fact, it's precisely the opposite. Either the vast majority of humanity would be enslaved to the rule of the DROs and those at the top who control them indefinitely or it would dissolve into bloodshed and anarchy. People don't generally take de facto inter-generational slavery and subjugation by oppressors very well for too long. Libertarians don't seem to understand that economic coercion is still (systemic) oppression, even if people willingly choose to submit to slavery (as opposed to death or total societal exclusion). Neither Libertopia nor the anarchy that would most likely follow are acceptable outcomes. They both represent a massive step backward for human civilization. Getting rid of national governments and replacing them with numerous DROs would Balkanize and reduce national and international society into local fiefdoms and tribalist company towns rigidly controlled by economic elites. Feudalism versus total anarchy are not good choices. As hyperbolic as that sounds, "as long as I can become a Also, yes, I understand there are no rights under anarchy, but there is the Libertarian assertion you still have the right to defend yourself against aggression in addition to the self-ownership principle. It may not be real or backed up by the force of law, but according to Libertarians these are still basic axiomatic principles. Would self-ownership not be considered a right in the Libertarian lens? ^That is an actual question, not a rhetorical question as an assertion, just FYI. tl;dr Conservative Libertarianism is a half-baked wishful theory that will eventually get us all killed or enslaved taken to its conclusion and can easily dissolve into violence and strife. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Phone posting but let me just say that while there are bastions of stability and civilization in Somalia they are completely due to a 'state' setting up shop, collecting taxes, and policing the area. Pretty much this. After the end of primitive communism with the invention of agriculture allowing people to stop migrating for food and settle down, the State was an additional invention needed to deal with the issue of excess stored resources (ie grain) and the issue of distribution of resources (ie the economy, even if it wasn't recognized as such then and that the theory for modern economics to explain this properly didn't show up until fairly recently). That's how the political class originally formed. In other words, the State is literally part and parcel of human civilization. When you get rid of that State, there then exists a political vacuum that, by nature, needs to be filled. Whether its DROs or local warlords vying for control, it's quite literally human civilization::State, QED. (I'm pointing this out because Libertarians/An-Caps see the State as a malignant influence that should be stripped down to almost nothing. I assert the opposite: that the State is the glue that binds modern civilization together, re: Rousseau's The Social Contract.) Libertarians, of course, cannot abide by this. So, like Creationists and other pseudo-scientists, they redefine words and move goal-posts until reality can be made to fit theory, rather than the other way around. In my view, DROs are absolutely State entities (albeit half-baked and inevitably authoritarian), just not recognized as such by Libertarians. How many Libertarians actually take a class in anthropology in addition to economics, by the way? I think that gap in knowledge is really telling. vvvv Right, which is why I mentioned in an above post that the ideal Libertopia would essentially be feudalist in the end. I was going to add in a detail about Libertarians wanting to turn the clock back to 1500 AD before the rise of the modern state, but I left it out. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I've always found this particular one funny, since the successful parts of Somalia are the ones that have been under a new state for the longest time, while the areas that have been outside a state's power for the longest time continue to be the worst off. I think if someone came to me introducing a hip new political/economic theory, and the shining star example they trot out is Somalia, I'd probably have an expression similar to  and slowly back away.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Clearly they should have started by purchasing a DRO/paying off a local mob before doing anything else. I like to imagine a real-life DRO would look similar to a Mexican drug cartel, enforcing your
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Uhhh....once more with feeling? Did you post the new second video yet?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:They seriously act like it's an That, and it's used as a slur to club people with rhetorically to show how hopelessly addicted to state services they are and that they're so intellectually rigid that they can't comprehend how good Libertarianism is and how evil the State is by comparison. To a Libertarian, QED the State is bad and Taxation is Theft; this is the starting pointing of debate, nothing can come before it. In other words, ~*~Praxeology~*~! Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 16:04
|
|
to call someone a "statist," like they've just shown you to be mindless sheeple, when it basically means you haven't been gobbling down their crazy pills.
|
RuanGacho posted:I'm still willing to begin with, "pay for services rendered, you fucker" when it seems like they're particularly obnoxious. "But I don't see any services in return for paying taxes. The government's just stealing my money to enrich the Statist cronies!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Libertarian ideology is similar to proposing that it's unnecessary and illegitimate for cars to have round wheels and we should reinvent the car to have, say, square wheels or no wheels at all. It just immediately strikes one as being so dumb and ignorant of the evolution of society in getting to where we are today as to be mind-boggling. It's literally regressing political thought to the time before Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hobbes, and etc as if we never invented the idea of the Social Contract. That's what you get for constantly slashing education budgets, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Cool Bear is an alcoholic poster who suddenly goes on strange posting rants like these every so often (especially on DnD). It's sort of his modus operandi.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
I will violate NAP by getting jrode to suck mah crip blood purple drank swigging big black dick until he answers my question.
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Always always browse libertarian stuff in private mode. One unprotected Molyneaux video will wreck your youtube recommendations for months. It's... Almost like loving without a condom. Oh well, I guess condoms violate NAP somehow anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why would you stop yourself? gently caress it, just hijack the thread and turn it into a KoDP Let's Play where the thread collectively rules the tribe like libertarians would. This land is lying idle, it's up to the hardy libertarian to claim it for their own!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Speaking of claiming unused property, how does jrod feel about supermarkets bleaching wasted food or locking dumpsters to keep people from scavenging from them? What if they were throwing out leftover cantaloupes? "Well, you see, it was the supermarket's property up until the time they threw it away, so they have every right to poison left-over produce if they so desire. If dirty (likely black) poors want to take the risk of seriously hurting or killing themselves to indulge in their base thievery and garbage rooting which is, of course, their proclivity to do, then that's their prerogative. It's up to them to know the risks and take their chances. Furthermore, *faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaart*" e: It's way too easy to role play as a Libertarian. It's so predictable! Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Man, it sure is refreshing to see a libertarian holding up The Mafia as an example of pure and good libertarian values. Whenever a libertarian says "extortion rackets wouldn't exist in libertopia" then we just need to point out that Rothbard disagrees and believes that they're actually A Good Thing, a feature of libertarian paradise is to pay money to a small group of thugs. And it makes internal sense; you voluntarily sign a contract, and now you're bound by that contract to pay up or they'll gently caress up your shop. Nevermind that my friend Bruno here was pointing a gun at you while you signed that contract, he wasn't really going to shoot you, it was just a funny joke! We weren't initiating any violence at all, clearly! I wish Jrode's probation would end soon so he could explain (read: dance around in convoluted and twisty logic) this one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:That's another thing about Libertarians. Government-created roads pre-dates Capitalism, Socialism, and loving writing. It is the literal life-line of civilization. Why, then, do Libertarians argue it's somehow a bad thing? Libertarians are ideologically committed to reinventing the wheel and replacing it with cinderblock squares.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Econ101 is the only economics class they want to learn because anything beyond that starts going against their beliefs. Libertarians assume all people are rational actors as per their Econ101 knowledge but don't realize this is an intentional simplification of models to teach the basics of Econ while accounting for irrational actors in higher level Econ (which coincidentally they don't ever bother to research), similar to how Physics simplifies the mathematics to teach the necessary Physics lessons to lower-level students and reserving the more accurate formulas for higher-level studies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You joke, but I had friends that donated plasma two or three times a week to meet rent. But they voluntarily chose to donate plasma! No economic coercion here, nosiree! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Any idea when Jrode is coming back? I'm starting to miss the miserable (melon) fucker just a little.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
"Oh hey, 90 new posts! Something new must have happened-" Libertarian/Jrodefeld thread: Fat Foodchat
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Less than 24 hours before Jrode is un-probated!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Jrode is unprobated. Any bets on when he makes a new post/thread making GBS threads up SA?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Maybe he took the month to really reflect back on the interactions he's had with people here, that perhaps he wasn't probated for having unpopular opinions but in fact because his rhetorical style is unproductive and disingenuous, considered that maybe there are some facts of human life that his ideology fails to cover in a satisfactory manner, and decided he should go out and build some perspective on what the world is really like for people less fortunate than himself. Pfffft ahahahaha. No, not really.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:"Please torture me by (detailed description of torture)" You have a future in Washington, my friend.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
EndOfTheWorld posted:In America, we coddle our elderly. Some even go into retirement despite having months, maybe years, of productive capacity left! When I think about Grandma wasting her energy at home gardening or making pierogi when she could have been putting that energy to work in a call center or a big box store... well I just mourn for all that lost productivity. Except for the whole, you know, ageism bias in hiring everywhere. What do you mean job creators are fallible!? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:That's a lot more fitting to how I use both terms. A+ When your days are spent analyzing Excel spreadsheets and quarterly profits every day for decades, you tend to lose track that there are human beings behind those numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:What's terrible are all the hoops you'd have to jump through to prove age discrimination, if you can even afford a suit. My step-dad was unemployed for a long time because although he was qualified, the employers wanted someone with "more energy." loving dog whistle for "you're too old" but try to convince anyone who votes 'R' that that's what it means. And let's say you somehow you being an age discrimination lawsuit to a company AND somehow won. Great, cool. You've just put up a flag to the whole industry you're willing to bring a lawsuit to them if you get fired for discrimination. Now companies mysteriously just flat out won't hire or consider you because something something other applicants are more qualified or have the right skills they're looking for. Good luck getting hired again in your field from now on! This is a good reason why STATIST countries make it so difficult to fire workers once they've been hired. The power imbalance between worker and employer is naturally huge in the favor of the employer and the scales need to balanced through plenty of worker protections and enforced rights as a consequence. "Right-to-Work" laws are a symptom of a society totally bought and paid for by the employer side of the equation. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:I believe you mean "at will employment" laws. Right to work laws make it so that you can't have a "closed shop" meaning that people can opt out of paying union dues and joining a union. At will allows employers to terminate employment at any time without having to give a reason why. Employees can quit without notice as well under such laws assuming no employment contract is in place saying otherwise. Sorry, you are right. I meant at-will employment. The premise is still the same, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Check it out: http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/07/22/if-i-were-in-charge-of-welfare/ I get the impression these kinds of people literally think of welfare recipients not as human beings but factory farm chattel to be pressed for extraction of maximum work efficiency. E: Also at voluntary consent to rules =/= violation of rights. At the very least it is absolutely abuse.E2: By this logic, they would be saying "you have nobody to blame but yourself" when it comes to someone applying for government assistance after being laid off due to company downsizing/mergers or unemployed after a company goes under due to economic recession/contraction. That's a pretty hosed up way of viewing the world, and one I mainly blame on an American culture of individualism and worship of workaholism. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Mar 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Demonizing of the poor goes back even further than that; Kurt Vonnegut wrote about this in the context of World War 2. He noted how weird it was that American poor hated themselves a lot more than European poor. The "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" thing in the US has been going on probably since the 19th century, American Dream and all of that My hypothesis is that there's a lot more emphasis on individualism as an ideology in America than Europe. It's easier to resist self-hatred when you're cognizant of your temporary place in a shifting and economy rather than being burdened by a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps! It's your fault if you don't succeed!" mentality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I think I may have already mentioned it at some point in this thread, but can I just (re?)say that the John Galt speech towards the end(?) of the book was actually THREE loving HOURS LONG! Seriosuly, who the gently caress writes that much for one goddamned speech? "This is so inspiring......" replied the YouTube commentator with an avatar of Wario, a video game character known for his insatiable greed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 18:11
|
|
