|
Libertarians don't assume rationality or perfect information, that is just continued misinformation, as is the claim that they aren't interested in discussing the formation of habits in individuals. To some extent they have faith in rationality, inasmuch as they are market-oriented, but they also have a completely other form of argumentation that focuses on the subjectivity of individual experience and asserts that it's a good to allow people to pursue people what they feel they want regardless of its true benefit to individuals, because they're unwilling to substitute another's judgement for a given individual's without their consent. Likewise, libertarians take up the argument that the formation of character and positive habits is actually a big problem for the statist position, since it's the claim of libertarians that pernicious ideologies, from fanatical medieval religion to fascism, have succeeded through the appropriation of the state's coercive powers and channels of distribution of information. Not that there is any unitary form of libertarianism to which any argument here can apply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
Libertarianism is the dowdiest of the counter-democratic philosophies. Fascism is way sexier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Libertarians don't assume that everyone is rational. They just convince themselves that only "rational" people (see: competitive, cunning, born rich) deserve to enjoy anything that doesn't involve directly enriching "rational" people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Can anyone point me towards a comprehensive, robust and digestible resource that outlines the evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change? Would also be interested in responses to the most common/serious objections from those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. I am a "believer" so to speak, but I'm not an expert and my research into the subject has been somewhat scattershot and not really cemented in my memory. This is mostly important because my dad is a "non-believer", and he's also quite good at winning arguments, so I'd like to arm myself for the inevitable debates when I'm home for the holidays. In its simplest form, his argument is that the climate has been changing since the beginning of Earth, that what humans have experienced is a "blink of the eye" in geologic time, and that anthropogenic climate change is not science since it's not falsifiable. What I'm not looking for is any sort of "99% of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change!" info. More interested in actual observations/data. Hope this is in line with the spirit of this thread, and thanks in advance for any help at all!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Can anyone point me towards a comprehensive, robust and digestible resource that outlines the evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change? Would also be interested in responses to the most common/serious objections from those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. Skeptical Science is good
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:and that anthropogenic climate change is not science since it's not falsifiable. I can tell you that, independent of anything else, that this is wrong. That's not what falsifiability means. Anthropogenic climate change has a null state: current climate change trends were not caused by humans. If we had convenient access to climates, plural, we could pretty comprehensively test it by having a control climate in which the Industrial Revolution and automobiles don't emit gasses. Hell, there probably are smaller-scale experiments going on that I just happen to not know about. We can study past and current climates to show that current changes directly correspond to human activities and establish the correlation. Or it could all fall flat on its face and he's right, but the point remains that it can be observed. The scale of human ability to create and replicate experiments is meaningless in that regard, it simply makes it more difficult to obtain information. Like, black hole cosmology. We can't even look at the things directly. Yet they're still falsifiable science. Think about it this way: the theory is that the stove is hot. The null hypothesis is that the stove is not hot. I observe this by placing my hand on the stove. I am now suffering immensely from burns. My theory stands, but it was falsifiable because the stove could have not been hot. "Not falsifiable" relates to things that cannot be empirically observed, such as "truth has beauty" or "the Hindu religion is correct." I cannot set up a device to measure the beauty of a painting and I can't emit protons at Vishnu, Susano'o, and the Abrahamic God to determine which one exists. Those are simply beyond the scope of scientific observation. He may also be misunderstanding the term "falsifiable" in general. Gravity is falsifiable. Here's the null hypothesis: objects do not exert force on one another proportional to their masses. But "falsifiable" does not mean it's particularly easy to topple over. You don't just point to one cold day in Kentucky and expect the entire theory of climate change to instantly fall apart. Theories adapt to new information. Finding a contrary point to the current model of gravitation doesn't mean we just toss out the entire thing and try to find an entirely different explanation for why the Earth orbits the Sun, instead the model is changed to account for this new information. So, just because a theory hypothetically can be proven to be completely bunk does not mean the facts have to support that bunk-ness for it to be falsifiable. It just has to be possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I can tell you that, independent of anything else, that this is wrong. That's not what falsifiability means. Anthropogenic climate change has a null state: current climate change trends were not caused by humans. If we had convenient access to climates, plural, we could pretty comprehensively test it by having a control climate in which the Industrial Revolution and automobiles don't emit gasses. Hell, there probably are smaller-scale experiments going on that I just happen to not know about. We can study past and current climates to show that current changes directly correspond to human activities and establish the correlation. Or it could all fall flat on its face and he's right, but the point remains that it can be observed. The scale of human ability to create and replicate experiments is meaningless in that regard, it simply makes it more difficult to obtain information. Like, black hole cosmology. We can't even look at the things directly. Yet they're still falsifiable science.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:This is not necessarily a bad post and may accurately reflect the basics of the pragmatic consensus, but it doesn't seem as if you've actually ever read Popper. No I haven't, first time I've heard of the person actually. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:No I haven't, first time I've heard of the person actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:What I'm not looking for is any sort of "99% of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change!" info. More interested in actual observations/data. I know this isn't necessarily what you're looking for, but I'm going to suggest that before you start arming yourself with an encyclopedia of facts that you consider why a scientific consensus alone isn't enough for your dad. A consensus exists because a majority of experts who have spent their lives learning to interpret a particular type of data have more or less agreed on what that data is saying. Since I'm going to assume that you're not actually a climatologist, all you're really going to be doing is parroting back more detailed versions of the conclusions made by people your dad already doesn't trust. Ultimately you know your dad better than anyone else here so if you think that's going to enough to convince him then go for it, but in my experience it's ridiculously tough to break through to people with facts alone on topics like this. You pretty much have to challenge his basic assumptions, like why he thinks it's reasonable to outright dismiss the conclusions of an entire field of experts. If you can't get him to agree that experts in the field might actually know what they're talking about, then why would you expect him to trust the facts you'd be throwing at him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
This makes me a happy lurker that this exist. I've been trying to catch up since my nights have been free again and drat. Everything sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
My Face When posted:Everything sucks. Sounds like you'd get along with us just find outside-a the wadin' pool. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the responses, much appreciated!  Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I can tell you that, independent of anything else, that this is wrong. That's not what falsifiability means… *snip* Cingulate posted:This is not necessarily a bad post and may accurately reflect the basics of the pragmatic consensus, but it doesn't seem as if you've actually ever read Popper. Any particular Popper material you'd recommend on this subject? Paradoxish posted:I know this isn't necessarily what you're looking for, but I'm going to suggest that before you start arming yourself with an encyclopedia of facts that you consider why a scientific consensus alone isn't enough for your dad. To be honest, this whole exercise will mostly be for my own peace of mind rather than actually changing his beliefs -- so that when an inevitable argument starts, I'll at least have some concrete evidence supporting my position. My dad isn't swayed by the fact that there's a scientific consensus because he sees that as appeal to authority. I actually think is totally justifiable in a "pure logic" sort of way, though I don't think it's a very pragmatic way to look at things. Maybe being confronted with some actual data will change his mind, more likely he'll have a way to rationalize/discredit the data and nothing will change, but at least I can try!Thanks again, all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
For the newbies and lurkers: If you're interested in an easy D&D thread, the Forwarded Political Emails thread is a great place to dip your toe in the water. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3186581 No need to read any of the previous pages. If you see something crazy and political in your inbox, twitter feed, facebook or whatever, feel free to share it with us. To anonymize your Facebook screenshots there's a plugin called Social Fixer. For taking long screenshots, you can use a plugin called FireShot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Any particular Popper material you'd recommend on this subject? He also has political work which I personally am very fond of, but then, I'm not good at politics. E: also, you probably want to at least glance over the Stanford Encyclopedia entries for Lakatos, Feyerabend, and Kuhn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Just want to say -- this is an excellent website, exactly what I was looking for! Will definitely be spending many hours here in the coming weeks, and it'll be totally worthwhile just for my own edification. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Has anyone ever applied an accelerationist argument to the gun control debate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:Has anyone ever applied an accelerationist argument to the gun control debate? What, as in, give everyone guns in the hopes it turns the world into mad max and eventually people ban guns? I mean I suppose the obvious counterargument against that is that an awful lot of people already die to firearms and it doesn't seem to be dissuading anyone. "More school shootings will strengthen gun control" doesn't work too well when school shootings are something like daily occurences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:Has anyone ever applied an accelerationist argument to the gun control debate?   
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Ok that looks awesome, what is it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:Has anyone ever applied an accelerationist argument to the gun control debate? gun suicides outpace gun homicides by a factor of 3 or more. though many demographics attempt suicide, middle aged white males are the most likely to complete a suicide. this is probably because of firearms, which is the most effective suicide method. all demographics attempt suicide, but many methods are faulty or slow and, once engaged in the act of self-termination, many people immediately regret their decision and try to change their minds. overdosing, for example, fails because many people who overdose report their self-poisoning and seek treatment. shooting one's self in the head is irreversible. due to some combination of factors - accessibility, dramatic intent, finality, the ease of crossing over - white men predominantly choose firearms as a method of personal extermination. this is why it is an unconstitutional breach of personal freedom to restrict firearm ownership among white men. the second amendment fully extends to the right to bankrupt farmers or frustrated veterans to put a bullet in their heads, and it is immature, nay, unpatriotic, to sway these proud americans from exercising their protected freedoms
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:gun suicides outpace gun homicides by a factor of 3 or more. though many demographics attempt suicide, middle aged white males are the most likely to complete a suicide. this is probably because of firearms, which is the most effective suicide method. all demographics attempt suicide, but many methods are faulty or slow and, once engaged in the act of self-termination, many people immediately regret their decision and try to change their minds. overdosing, for example, fails because many people who overdose report their self-poisoning and seek treatment. shooting one's self in the head is irreversible. due to some combination of factors - accessibility, dramatic intent, finality, the ease of crossing over - white men predominantly choose firearms as a method of personal extermination. this is why it is an unconstitutional breach of personal freedom to restrict firearm ownership among white men. the second amendment fully extends to the right to bankrupt farmers or frustrated veterans to put a bullet in their heads, and it is immature, nay, unpatriotic, to sway these proud americans from exercising their protected freedoms I don't think suicide's a big deal- less middle class white males is less competition for that kind of work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't think suicide's a big deal- less middle class white males is less competition for that kind of work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
FetusSlapper posted:Ok that looks awesome, what is it? That would be Zardoz, which is loving bizarre and defies description so I'll just link the clip. I really need to watch it one of these days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4cL21cF4cw
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What, as in, give everyone guns in the hopes it turns the world into mad max and eventually people ban guns? Things could still get worse than they are now. Maybe as a nation we still haven't reached the breaking point. After every school shooting they say "this wouldn't have happened if it weren't a gun free zone!" so what would happen if there were no gun free zones? There's a lot of people who argue that "the solution is more guns" and that teachers and school staff should carry guns. What if laws were actually passed to facilitate this? What if they took that argument further and said that every schoolchild should have a gun? Maybe the only way to get effective gun control measures in place is to prove the gun nuts wrong by actually implementing their proposals. Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:Things could still get worse than they are now. Maybe as a nation we still haven't reached the breaking point. You will probably find that difficult to argue for the same reason accelerationism in general isn't a popular viewpoint. The people who desire to end the problems that accelerationism is supposed to end, probably don't want to make them worse in the hopes that it will somehow make them better later. And also it's difficult to suggest how making things worse would make things better in the long term, rather than simply for a short while until memory fades and we swing back round to worse again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
The way things have been going, I figured we already accelerated into that idea. Something about fear really drives people insane. I feel like it's a mixture of lovely, yet effective, messaging from the Right that the idea that a BLACK MAN is going to take your guns. A BLACK MAN is going to break into your house, even though you live in a rural area and most of the break ins are from white meth-heads. You have to have a pistol in Dallas because a BLACK MAN is going to rob you (My mom seriously did this and I'm like...why?). It's very easy to get guns and its frightening. I beleive there was a documentary on Current before it became Al Jazerra that really encapsulated how it easy it was and it was just shocking. Gun shows are the worst. Fear and racism is such a great motivator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Rip OP what the hell man
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Humans Among Us posted:Rip OP what the hell man Posting in a thread called "POST IN THIS THREAD TO BE BANNED!!!" generally results in getting banned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Yeah no doubt about that. Still i hope we can continue this thread by the guidelines as laid out by Dogcrash [pbuh]
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Hi, so while I do post regularly in one thread, the Political Maps thread, I don't do so beyond silly joke posts and the occasional weird map. Does that make me a forum regular? Because I consider myself a lurker/newbie in all other cases since I've never actually wet my feet by posting a thread or an argument. Anyways, I wanted to ask if we've discussed the issue of technological unemployment/automation recently. I seem to recall it having come up at some point during the past year or two, but it's a subject that I've been meaning to open up to discussion since I've been getting interested in it. I've read Martin Ford's Rise of the Robots and a few (rather terrible IMO) other books on the subject, but I don't have a very strong opinion on it one way or another, so I don't feel like I would be a good candidate to start a whole OP about it besides "So there's this thing -- what do you guys think about it?" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Hi, so while I do post regularly in one thread, the Political Maps thread, I don't do so beyond silly joke posts and the occasional weird map. Does that make me a forum regular? Because I consider myself a lurker/newbie in all other cases since I've never actually wet my feet by posting a thread or an argument. The subject inevitably comes up when minimum wage is discussed because there's this idea that if you try to force McDonald's to pay burger flippers $15/hr they'll give up on labor and open automats. Could be worth a thread as long as people take it seriously / discussion attempts to stay away from minimum wage since that has a tendency to go badly, don't know how realistic that is though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
My Face When posted:The way things have been going, I figured we already accelerated into that idea. Something about fear really drives people insane. I feel like it's a mixture of lovely, yet effective, messaging from the Right that the idea that a BLACK MAN is going to take your guns. A BLACK MAN is going to break into your house, even though you live in a rural area and most of the break ins are from white meth-heads. You have to have a pistol in Dallas because a BLACK MAN is going to rob you (My mom seriously did this and I'm like...why?). It's very easy to get guns and its frightening. I beleive there was a documentary on Current before it became Al Jazerra that really encapsulated how it easy it was and it was just shocking. Gun shows are the worst. So there's this narrative of black violence (and etc.), and the narrative of guns for protection against crime, but I assume they are usually kept carefully separated in any medium that's not strictly for insider consumption. Or am I being too optimistic here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Can anyone point me towards a comprehensive, robust and digestible resource that outlines the evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change? Would also be interested in responses to the most common/serious objections from those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. Skeptical Science is great. The other two things I usually link to people is the actual International Panel on Climate Change report, where they list what is happening, why, and how confident they are and how strong the evidence is for each claim: Here is the full site: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml This summary for policy makers from the IPCC is 32 pages and has nice graphics and is extremely readable. If you're looking for a summary of evidence, the IPCC reports are great, and the summary is a nice place to start. The other thing I link is the Debunking Handbook from skeptical science, because it goes through how to actually change the minds of people who don't believe in climate change. I also made a big 'ol OP for the current thread on the topic if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Thanks everyone for the responses, much ap I'll at least have some concrete evidence supporting my position. My dad isn't swayed by the fact that there's a scientific consensus because he sees that as appeal to authority. I actually think is totally justifiable in a "pure logic" sort of way, though I don't think it's a very pragmatic way to look at things. Maybe being confronted with some actual data will change his mind, more likely he'll have a way to rationalize/discredit the data and nothing will change, but at least I can try! This is really weird to me. Appeals to authority is only a fallacy in very specific cases. If your dad ever goes to a doctor or dentist in his life he's already trusting authorities in science. no amount of facts can help in this kind of situation; at best they can used to show everyone else at the table why your dad is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
I took a long hiatus, for that I apologize for failing to warn my opponents. During that, I did meander through some posts and rethink some of my positions and came to my conclusion while writing the replies which sit specifically for opponent satisfaction. I concede my points. I don't know where I stand but I've jumped far from Libertarian, conceding defeat in this debate. For the sake of sport-debate and opponent satisfaction, I did counter some points with the Libertarian ideals I came in with but I can't promise more discussion beyond this concession of defeat. I still think many of you have a deep misunderstanding of Libertarian ideals (seriously, I don't know any Libertarian that believes everything will be solved peacefully, have you seen how many guns we own?) but those are no longer mine. Thank you everyone for helping me completely lose my political grounding. Now can't figure out why I liked Trump. I still believe in personal freedom above all (think seatbelt laws, not economic freedom like taxes - I currently have no grounded opinion on that type of politics) but I don't think we correlate that to Libertarianism here. Remember: the following is for opponent satisfaction only, replies from me are a may-be. Toasticle posted:The idea that the value of a life is judged by their bank account is, frankly, repulsive. Van Gogh enriched humanity far more than you or I could dream of and died alone and destitute. Jonas Salk working for The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis developed and were the first step in very nearly eradicating polio but did not patent the cure. They made no money off a vaccine that dropped polio rates from the tens of thousands to dozens. I see that as the true measure of a man, how many dollar bills he has stashed away is the least important thing to judge someone by. Van Gogh chose to donate his valuable invention. Nothing was stopping him from simply taking a FAIR price for his goods, then using the profits to give him a somewhat decent life (there's nothing wrong with making 72k/yr) and using the rest to either further his moral agendas in research and even making the drug available for free to those who he defined as unable to afford it. Of course, in a Libertarian society, he'd know to do this, as it would be the rule of the land, just as in a socialist society we'd all know NOT to do that. Here's the thing. Fact is, people like Van Gogh and Jonas Salt are more important than people like you or me. And screw that, so is Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak. Do you have any idea what adding the PC did to society? Elon Musk is a personal hero of mine because he made his fortune with saving the world in mind! So let's take these great men and look at them. One of them, and I, needs a kidney. Elon Musk needs a kidney and so do I. We both want it. In this scenario, I selfishly would take it for myself before handing it over to the more worthy human being. I'm a nobody, he's changing the world. Sure, he's no Martin Luther King, but he's much more vital to society's interests than I. Are you going to actually flip a coin on who lives or dies or are you going to measure our worth and pick the one (to receive the kidney) based on which one of us more important!? Now, I agree, that your anecdotal men are quite possibly more important than mine but if you have a better way of measuring people's worthiness, please, go for it. Fact is, if the president and I are both lying on a table in critical health, you treat the president first because we all know the president is more important than most random civilians. I know, I know, figurehead - he's still more important than most of us. But you have to concede that we can come up with a better measuring system than: President, VP, not-either-of-those. Regarding Hawking, yeah, my system would let him die. It would be an unfortunate but calculated risk. At the same time, his mother could have aborted him. Are you prepared to make the same argument against pro-choicers? Note: I'm not trying to split the argument here, I'm going on the assumption that you're pro-choice and if you're not then I just argumentatively sunk myself trying to find an inconsistency in your logic. :P How does freedom make people happy? I'm not sure I have the vernacular expertise to explain that. If it doesn't do this for you then we differ ideologically. You guys keep talking about cash on-hand and up-front. Fact is, I can't, at this time, pay for a kidney transplant. That being said, my bank will give me a loan. I have the credit score and income for it. Now something that will prevent me from working? Well, I can't see them giving me a loan I can't pay off. Your wealth (and credit reputation) is a representation of what you HAVE done and, to me, represents your worth to society (of course, roughly and there are exceptions). It's also fun to replace the word 'dollars' with 'favors.' "Society owes me some favors, I'm cashin' 'em in for some cheeseburgers." I think you get my point on the whole already but I just wanted to correct this. On the whole, your analysis is correct and I don't find it unacceptable that you'd no more wish to live in my society than I yours. Different strokes. To address these downsides to my personal version of happiness: I didn't or didn't mean to say that I was gonna die, just that in some scenarios that I would. See, since people don't have to take care of, say, me if I die doing the stupid poo poo I do on a daily basis (I really am quite dumb and you don't deserve to pay for my mistakes) they have more money to pay for their own well-being. More money for personal protective equipment, more money for R&R (reduces stress/psycho trauma) and more money for healthcare. I'm also (not a Libertarian thing, just a freedom thing) against helmet laws. Helmets do nothing but good and propagate measurably increased happiness and improved lifespans. That being said, freedom > all because the very state of being free, to me, brings on happiness. Sidenote: I'd wear a helmet regardless. Would be seriously injured without by now. Hm, y'know, you're right. That (hovering reaper) would be a problem in a Libertarian world. Someone should make a business out of it where you sort of like...bet against yourself. Insurance! Ok, sarcasm over :P But in all seriousness, there is a business for every need and if there isn't one, there is opportunity for you. I, even in this world we have now, have income insurance. If I get hurt, I will get my income for up to 6 months. That's all you really need in our society (in my opinion, your mileage may vary) but in a Libertarian society, you'd want to hedge your bets more carefully and pay a higher premium for a full-on policy covering you for life in the event you get maimed. Or a large cash payout. Whatever. The market will decide. Racism: it did seem like you were calling me racist. Thank you for correcting that belief, I wholly believe you when you say you aren't while I completely could understand how someone could see what I wrote as racist. All I need is to begin this debate with a, "I'm not racist but..." to make people certain, haha. Honestly I hate to be so one-issue but I earnestly believe that freedom, in and of itself, begets happiness. Hm, here's something. I heard it on the motorcycle forum: if motorcycles were invented today, they'd be illegal. Why? Well, they're dangerous as gently caress. They don't exactly put others at risk but they are very likely to cause the rider death. loving death. Not injury, loving straight up death. They are deadly, scary machines that no one should ever so much as consider mounting because they will loving KILL YOU. But they're legal...and I ride one, because it actually has such a remarkable effect on my psyche that I lost the little voice in my head that creeps up FOR NO REASON AT ALL and tells me to kill myself. I don't know where that voice came from but it's been in there most of my life. Seriously. I just passed the halfway point. When I have and frequently ride my motorcycle, the voice stays away. If that is not a pure and measurable happiness I don't know what is. When I ride I feel like I'm above the law, superhuman, not held back by the same restraints other humans are, simply because I'm doing something obnoxiously (not my pipes, my exhaust is quiet, thank you) stupid. Now this isn't to do the old-fashioned relationship between motorcycles and freedom, that's too cliche, but I wonder about the rest of you. I wonder what you would be doing, if you were unrestrained from any activity that didn't infringe on another's freedom. Maybe what really got your jollies was unsanctioned underground fights. Naturally throw a few medics in there to make it a semi-safe sport, as my helmet does, but leave that poo poo hardcore, whatever way you want it, really - this is your world. Maybe some of you'd be interested in drugs. I'd hate to see anyone doing either of those things (especially the drugs, chronically) but I wouldn't want to stop you. Not forcibly. Freedom summons happiness in this way. BTW obviously I should seek psychological help for my little voice - maybe if riding becomes a non-option. For now, the bike works as therapy. Wales Grey posted:More People who did not life's proverbial ground running: an unfortunate loss. That being said, people at the top will fall, eventually. Money as an indicator for importance: name a better indicator. I say this not because there must be one but it sounds like, correct me if I'm wrong, you have a better way to efficiently measure a man. Also, in the above remarks, I lay out a scenario where the president and I both need a kidney. Is importance somewhat measurable now? Background on me: I'm an unimportant civilian that can be replaced by one of hundreds of thousands, I'm sure. I'm not very important. Your proposition that money has no value: for the purpose of believing that currency has value, pretend money is backed up by McDonald's cheeseburgers. Measure all wealth in McDonald's cheeseburgers. BUY A NEW KIEFER KIA FOR 15,000 MCDONALD'S CHEESEBURGERS type of poo poo. I'm having a conversation about ways to distribute money and wealth to the masses, not the merits of paper as a currency, yo. Money is worth poo poo because we all agree to take it so, yes, in effect: money=favors, or cheeseburgers if you're going to be like that. Racism: I know, but this does not make me racist. By your logic as I understand it, any system other than socialist is racist, which negates any and all conversation. All systems encourage some type of unethical behavior. It is a burden on society to minimize their specific brand of unethical behavior. In a socialist society, you better believe I'd be the welfare queen. Yes, I know welfare queens are unicorns in current reality. Wales Grey posted:Weed-smoking reactionaries who love an idealized version of contract law with a healthy helping of Social Darwinism, while trying to evade the costs of Social Darwinism by replacing all humans with perfectly rational robots who operate solely in their own rationalized self-interest but still manage to always make decisions that avoid tragedies of the commons, and all disputes will be solved non-violently via arbitration and troubleshooting companies. It's the most "friction-less spheres in a vacuum" political position. Err...not far off, really. I mean, aside from the baseless assumptions (Libertarians really like guns for a reason, most of us don't think there will be long lasting peace). Also...people will get hurt/die. They will serve as an example, just as car surfing teenagers do to their peers. Don't do x because Jimmy did x and Jimmy died.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Verge posted:Regarding Hawking, yeah, my system would let him die. It would be an unfortunate but calculated risk. At the same time, his mother could have aborted him. Are you prepared to make the same argument against pro-choicers? Note: I'm not trying to split the argument here, I'm going on the assumption that you're pro-choice and if you're not then I just argumentatively sunk myself trying to find an inconsistency in your logic. :P Forcing a mother to carry a child to term doesn't seem like a libertarian ideal to me, could you explain the principle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
An extra for everyone: I do want to add one more thing to defend Libertarians: I suppose I came to Libertarian ideals to counter the bureaucracy that goes on in our system. There are so many laws and exemptions and this and that, freedoms and restrictions and, I mean, imagine a textbook that listed all the do's and don'ts for a CEO. Wouldn't it be thick as gently caress? I think (or, rather thought) that the law, in any practice or application, should be so elegantly simple that it can be summed up in a few paragraphs and everyone could extrapolate, from that, every law with a very low margin of error. Now it's easy to be a hardline purist and I don't mean for that because it's loving stupid (hardline purism) I'm simply stating that handing business near-maximum freedom can make things much simpler, from one standpoint anyway. Again, I no longer hold this view, I just thought I'd tack it on for viewpoint sharing's sake. Tesseraction posted:Forcing a mother to carry a child to term doesn't seem like a libertarian ideal to me, could you explain the principle? Sure thing, bud. It's [pro-life ideals] not [part of Libertarian or my own ideals]. My point was that an "every life matters" stance is not self-proving as good. Simply misunderstanding of my motive you had there. My fault.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Verge posted:Sure thing, bud. It's [pro-life ideals] not [part of Libertarian or my own ideals]. My point was that an "every life matters" stance is not self-proving as good. Simply misunderstanding of my motive you had there. My fault. This is just falsely equalizing (spacing out on what word this should be) living persons with living fetuses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
When I was visiting the US the other day with a few friends of mine, all European, half of them intra-European immigrants, this Uber driver started lecturing us about how 1. oppressively high the taxes are in the US, 2. immigration will destroy Europe. Otherwise, he was a cool dude. That's my libertarian story. (The story is, I used Uber, which was I guess very libertarian and also pleasant.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:34
|
|