If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Confessions of a former Buddhist Libertarian who realized his two ideologies could never reconcile   (salon.com) divider line 200
    More: Silly, Buddhist Libertarian, natural response, intellectuals  
•       •       •

5843 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2014 at 1:24 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-26 05:39:25 PM  

jaytkay: Coniuratos: jaytkay: Oatworm: About the only thing we [Libertarians] can universally agree on is that letting the government decide is a really lousy way of handling what is ultimately a personal moral choice.

"I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception."
Paul.Senate.gov

Quoting a Republican to argue against a Libertarian? Yeah, that makes sense.

No TRUE libertarian can be a Republican.

lol

Conservatives are so childlike.


Actually, if I had to pick one of the major parties, I'd personally lean Democrat. They're closer to where I lean, culturally and socially, than the GOP.

Put another way, it's a little difficult to take a political party seriously when they run a Senate candidate that openly wants to criminalize blowjobs because... uh... children! Yeah, that's it!
 
2014-01-26 05:50:03 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dadoody: Well, I know a lot of pro-big government types love coming to this website. So go visit Sunny Venezuela. That's a Liberal Paradise.

This is why I can never take you Libertarians seriously. Because you start with the "Statist" crap and then mention North Korea and Venezuela, almost as stupid as the people saying Libertarians want us to be Somalia when in actuality they just want to pretend that the Articles of Confederations (which is based on their own beliefs) wasn't a colossal failure.


Those make absolute sense in that they are examples of terrible State controls. Somalia, on the other hand, has no rule of law. They are an anarchy with spurts of totalitarian regimes.

Venezuela is no stretch at all.
 
2014-01-26 05:51:44 PM  

Oatworm: Actually, if I had to pick one of the major parties, I'd personally lean Democrat. They're closer to where I lean, culturally and socially, than the GOP.


Ditto. I tend to vote straight-ticket LP, but if I was going to support one of the two major parties it would be the Dems. I agree with them on nearly all of the social issues that are far, far more important to me than the fiscal ones.

Just more anecdotal proof that saying that Libertarians are "far right" is both lazy and indicative of someone who doesn't understand libertarian philosophy.
 
2014-01-26 05:53:08 PM  
Just wanted to point out that the libertarian argument is not that a society of people free of coercion will take care of each other.  The argument is that all things being equal, a society of people free of coercion will take care of each other no worse than if that same society of people had a state apparatus through which they could instigate coercion.  The idea the libertarians put forward is that while the state can provide useful things like welfare, food stamps, education, and other social safety net programs, all of those things also come bundled with a certain degree of warfare, religion based morality laws, cronyism, special interest funding, censorship, excessive taxation, etc.  Further, the libertarians argue that the only way to separate the good aspects of the state from the bad aspects, is if you have an ethical and egalitarian populous, however if you had such a populous, you wouldn't need a coercive state apparatus in the first place.  Or in other words, the libertarian argument is that while the level of public welfare provided by the state through coercion may appear greater than what it would be absent that coercion, this higher level of public welfare is offset by abuses by the state of it's coercive powers.

Now, the counter to this argument is that the libertarian argument would only apply if you assume that a given populous all has an equal level of influence in how their state operates.  (Which might explain why so many populous political movements often seem to end with a government that's more inefficient and more oppressive.)  The anti-libertarian argument would be that despite all of the democratic trappings, the actual leadership in any democracy is not simply a reflection of the populous they rule over, and thus it might be possible to have a state apparatus that is marginally more ethical and egalitarian than what you would get if the clueless, less intelligent, less politically involved masses were left to their own devices.  This argument, though, depends on the assumption that the traits that allow an individual to succeed to a place of leadership in a democratic system predispose that individual to have a greater chance at being more ethical and more egalitarian than an average member of the society.
 
2014-01-26 05:55:44 PM  

media.salon.com



ARE WE NOT MEN?


WE ARE DEVO!

 
2014-01-26 06:02:49 PM  

Oatworm: Also, I live in the west and have read my history. There was plenty of "privatized" police in the 19th century, mostly owned and controlled by mine owners. It wasn't pretty.


Takes a special kind of Libertarian to realize that total Libertarianism failed hard and still be in favor of Libertarianism.
 
2014-01-26 06:09:18 PM  
Stupid asshole is too stupid to understand libertarianism. Libertarianism is about what government ought or ought not do, how much "inherent right" government has to push people around and take things from them essentially at gunpoint. Personal charitable impulses are a non-issue for libertarianism. You want to give to the poor? GIVE TO THE POOR! Libertarianism has no problem with this. You want to form a "let's give all our stuff to the poor club"? FORM IT! Libertarianism has no problem with this. What libertarianism has a problem with is people who say "we will use the power of government to force people to live as we think they ought to live, including forcing them to be as charitable as we think they ought to be". "Keeping all your stuff" is NOT mandatory for libertarians. "Not letting government forcibly take away your stuff" is the point. Likewise, a libertarian government is not to play favorites. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" under libetarian government philosophy. Big banks act stupid? Big banks deserve to fail. Bankers break laws? Bankers are to go to jail. That's how libertarianism works.

There are very few libertarians. There are a lot of plutocrats and randie cultists who call themselves "libertarian".
 
2014-01-26 06:09:21 PM  

Dadoody: Venezuela is no stretch at all.


Yep Obama has us pretty much at the level of Venezuela.

/ This is what conservatives believe
 
2014-01-26 06:22:15 PM  

FarkingHateFark: The article is stupid, the writer is stupid, and all of y'all are stupid. Not once did he bring up the non-aggression principle, which is the crucial linchpin to libertarianism. And there is nothing in Buddhism that is at odds with that principle. In fact, the two philosophies go together extremely well: to minimize suffering, it is better not to force others to accommodate your own worldview. Instead, seek to improve the world through your own actions.

Anyone who thinks libertarians are selfish because they don't want to force others to live their lives according to someone else's worldview simply doesn't understand the philosophy at all.


Why is that stupid, I don't see non-aggression as being the calling card of libertarianism. It's sort of just there. It's the economic policy that the writer and others take issue with. It's basis is "I got mine f you." Most liberals, and buddhists alike agree with the social aspects of libertarianism, but it's the economic part where it really falls flat on its face.
 
2014-01-26 06:24:09 PM  

Oatworm: Disclaimer: I'm in my state Libertarian Party's Executive Committee. So I'm in deep.

Abortion: Libertarians, like most Americans, are 50/50 on this one. Some libertarians argue that the right of a woman to her body is supreme. Others argue that the right of an unborn child to its self and existence is supreme. About the only thing we can universally agree on is that letting the government decide is a really lousy way of handling what is ultimately a personal moral choice. We've already seen what a world of locally regulated and prohibited abortion looks like - look up life before Roe v. Wade. Or Romania when Ceaucescu was still in power - he actually sent out doctors to examine teenaged girls monthly for signs of pregnancy to keep them from aborting future factory workers and soldiers.

The role of government and the market: Depends on who you ask. Admittedly, the Anarcho-Capitalist strain gets most of the press - their positions are the most "interesting", after all, since they're the most extreme. Truth be told, even most libertarians in the LP (which, in turn, represents a small subset of the libertarian movement) aren't full-metal ancaps hell-bent on abolishing the state. Most are different flavors of "minarchist", meaning we acknowledge that a state is useful in certain circumstances. Personally, for example, I prefer a democratically represented government in charge of the police over privatized police because the people that would have the most concerns regarding police conduct - the poor and the desperate - should have every bit as much of a say in how the police operates in their neighborhoods as the better off paying the bills.

Also, I live in the west and have read my history. There was plenty of "privatized" police in the 19th century, mostly owned and controlled by mine owners. It wasn't pretty.

Libertarian women: There's quite a few of them, actually. Julie Borowski, Sarah Skwire, and plenty more have at least as strong of a voice in the movement as any man. The issues of where feminism and privilege fit into libertarianism is also a hot one - since we favor the rights of the individual, the issue of how much force and constraint is exerted by culture and government against an individual's ability to meaningfully express those rights certainly has our attention. There's no clear consensus yet, but there's definitely healthy debate about the topic.

State's rights: Libertarians don't want states to have rights. We want people to have rights. We're well aware of the horrors of Jim Crow and state-sanctioned institutional racism and we're quite happy those days are over. We're also well aware that there are more than a few self-styled "libertarians" using our philosophies of freedom and self-determination against us to support reprehensible behavior that, as a people, we should be well past ignoring now. These individuals are merely following the well-trodden paths of their ancestors, who used liberal Enlightment philosophy to justify their antediluvian, Stone Age behavior as a form of "enlightenment" and "stewardship". They ultimately failed, and, as long as we have anything to say about it, they will continue to fail as they settle into the alcohol and tobacco ash filled bottom of the trash bin of history.


I'm on a mobile so ntire post, but I just want to make this clear:

Anarcho-Capitalism is an offensive term. There are many strains of anarchist beliefs, but they all share two important principles; no private property, and no private ownership of capital.

These beliefs alone make the very concept of anarcho-capitalism impossible.

Here's what's happening: you retards took the term "Libertarian" because it sounded cool and completely peeled off the actual meaning and history of the term. Seriously. Look it up. It actually meant something.

Now that isn't good enough, so you retards are trying to take another term that you think sounds cool or edgy and manipulate it to mean something it's not.

Anyone who identifies as an anarcho-capitalist is a fraud and a moron. Any libertarian who allows them to identify themselves as such is a moron and lacks any understanding of anarchism.

Which makes sense, since Libertarians often fail to understand their own political ideals.
 
2014-01-26 06:31:14 PM  

positronica: Just wanted to point out that the libertarian argument is not that a society of people free of coercion will take care of each other. The argument is that all things being equal, a society of people free of coercion


A libertarian society would not be free of coercion. It wouldn't even be free of government coercion, but that's not relevant here. What is relevant is the "free" market is powerfully coercive.

Normal people understand this. Libertarians do not. Normal people understand, for example, that a woman (or a man, but usually a woman) can be coerced to perform sex acts she doesn't care to via economic coercion. Rarely do harassers so boldly assert "blow me or I'll fire you;" but the fact is, libertarianism finds exactly that kind of "free" market behavior unobjectionable.

I can already hear the butthurt, turned all the way up to potato. "I find sexual harassment objectionable! Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I like sexual harassment!"

Who gives a flying f*ck what you find objectionable? "Libertarianism" as an ideology does not find sexual harassment objectionable. It is perfectly okay with "blow me or I'll fire you," on the fantasy that somehow the market will correct such behavior "if it really is bad." This even though sexual harassment  happens in our world today, where sexual harassment is punished by force of law, and where there's no reason market forces wouldn't also work to deter it.

You imagine there's only one type of coercion. But everyone who lives outside of his mother's basement knows how coercive market forces can really be. And they know how government coercion can diminish market coercion, or at least provide some of its victims a hope for a remedy. That's why libertarianism as an ideology always has and always will be only marginally relevant to the American political conversation.
 
2014-01-26 06:35:26 PM  

Silly_Sot: Stupid asshole is too stupid to understand libertarianism. Libertarianism is about what government ought or ought not do, how much "inherent right" government has to push people around and take things from them essentially at gunpoint. Personal charitable impulses are a non-issue for libertarianism. You want to give to the poor? GIVE TO THE POOR! Libertarianism has no problem with this. You want to form a "let's give all our stuff to the poor club"? FORM IT! Libertarianism has no problem with this. What libertarianism has a problem with is people who say "we will use the power of government to force people to live as we think they ought to live, including forcing them to be as charitable as we think they ought to be". "Keeping all your stuff" is NOT mandatory for libertarians. "Not letting government forcibly take away your stuff" is the point. Likewise, a libertarian government is not to play favorites. There is no such thing as "too big to fail" under libetarian government philosophy. Big banks act stupid? Big banks deserve to fail. Bankers break laws? Bankers are to go to jail. That's how libertarianism works.

There are very few libertarians. There are a lot of plutocrats and randie cultists who call themselves "libertarian".


I don't get it.

Liberals don't like authority either. Liberals want a push for peace and unjust wars. They want the concept of police authority to change in America. But what liberals take issue with is letting the poor starve instead of using an organized government program to insure people that need help get help everywhere. Not just in localized places where there might be volunteers to help and there might not. Volunteer organizations that are not run by the government exist anyways, I don't see how that's not the best of both worlds.

Not only that but wealth inequality is a real problem, and it's getting worse. I don't see anything under libertarianism that fixes that problem, not only does libertarianism not seem to fix anything, but it seems to make it worse.
 
2014-01-26 06:37:48 PM  

Pocket_Fisherman: I think its cute when people think that being a libertarian means you don't help others.

I'm a libertarian (atheist) and donate about 10k locally a year and run two food drives. Being a libertarian doesn't mean you don't help, it means you don't force other people to help via government.


The problem is Pocket, is that by that definition you might as well not have a government at all. Just a bunch of individuals looking out for themselves like some Road Warrior movie. Roads, the police, the military, libraries, none of these things exist without you or I being taxed our income. Then there are things like public research, which you probably aren't for pay either right? I mean, corporations can do all the research right?!

Nope. The internet wouldn't exist without public research. Without DARPA and CERN there would be no internet and if corporations had somehow come up with it it wouldn't be the wide open internet we know and love.
 
2014-01-26 06:51:15 PM  
Bhutan is the Buddhist paradise, right? A constitutional monarchy with many restrictions on liberty. Shuns hyper-consumerism. Shipped out 30% of its people in the 90s when they were deemed "illegal residents." Now, it's supposedly the happiest place on Earth?
 
2014-01-26 07:00:52 PM  

Dadoody: Well, I know a lot of pro-big government types love coming to this website. So go visit Sunny Venezuela. That's a Liberal Paradise.

[americasinc.com image 612x459]



And conservatives, should go to Somalia.  No government and lots of guns!
 
2014-01-26 07:10:14 PM  

ZeroCorpse: This is why I embrace Compassionate Geniocracy; The idea that our government should be comprised of the most intelligent and most creative members of our society, rather than the current state of being comprised of the most powerful, wealthy, or popular people.

In a geniocracy, the geniuses rule. In my ideal geniocracy, these public servants would not be elected, but selected--  drafted,  if you will-- upon detection and determination of their high intelligence and creativity. They would be required to serve their nation for the greater good, and there would be term limits that are non-negotiable. There's no election. No re-election. No buying your way into another term. You serve your time as a leader of the people, making the logical (but compassionate and humane) decisions, and then you step down and retire from politics, never to influence government policy again.

There would be no single leader-- No President-- but a Triumvirate of the three most intelligent people in the current administrative cycle. Each member would represent a political/philosophical ideal, i.e. there would be one liberal, one conservative, and one centrist. They would make decisions by a majority vote, i.e. two out of the three, or all three, must agree to move forward.

The Senate would be made up of the remaining creative and intellectual geniuses of the current political cycle, each representing a state, city-state, or territory with equal influence. And no one in this Senate would be possessed of an I.Q. under 130 (5 points higher than the current adult standard for genius).

Local governors and representatives would be the same. Nobody elected. Nobody with an I.Q. under 130.

Governor Triumvirates could not act in a way that affects the welfare of the people of their state without first bringing their proposed course of action to the National Triumvirate, who would decide whether or not the lower triumvirate was acting in the best interest of the people.

Lobbyists would be banned, ...


Simpsons did it....

wtsof.tv
 
2014-01-26 07:16:22 PM  
Is there a rebuttal in this thread to any liberal argument about how public schools, roads, research, welfare is a bad thing or in someway is replaceable by libertarianism? Because I haven't seen it. I keep seeing people saying how everyone gets libertarianism wrong, but when it comes to how it solves the inherent ills of capitalism or how it replaces all the good parts of government services and regulations I don't see any explanation. Which seems to happen in every libertarian discussion I've ever seen, the details are always missing.

I believe a new paradigm of government is necessary in the future that is rooted in science/reason, focuses on the pursuit of happiness of the people, and emphasizes more socio/economic equality, but I don't see how economic libertarianism is part of that equation.
 
2014-01-26 07:39:15 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: jigger: It's true. There was no civilization before the income tax.

Yeah, the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on levying taxes. That's an astute observation.


I thought the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on the backs of slaves.  And then they told those slaves to stand very still because they had a whole ancient empire on their backs and it could slide off if they stood up.  That's in the history books.
 
2014-01-26 07:41:10 PM  

trappedspirit: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: jigger: It's true. There was no civilization before the income tax.

Yeah, the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on levying taxes. That's an astute observation.

I thought the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on the backs of slaves.  And then they told those slaves to stand very still because they had a whole ancient empire on their backs and it could slide off if they stood up.  That's in the history books.


Some research show that the people who built the pyramids weren't actually slaves, they were paid laborers.
 
2014-01-26 07:43:36 PM  

MayoSlather: Is there a rebuttal in this thread to any liberal argument about how public schools, roads, research, welfare is a bad thing or in someway is replaceable by libertarianism? Because I haven't seen it. I keep seeing people saying how everyone gets libertarianism wrong, but when it comes to how it solves the inherent ills of capitalism or how it replaces all the good parts of government services and regulations I don't see any explanation. Which seems to happen in every libertarian discussion I've ever seen, the details are always missing.

I believe a new paradigm of government is necessary in the future that is rooted in science/reason, focuses on the pursuit of happiness of the people, and emphasizes more socio/economic equality, but I don't see how economic libertarianism is part of that equation.


Are you seriously taking public education & saying that's why government works? The public school system is exactly why we send our kids to private school. No amount of additional funding to the schools will make the inherently flawed system better.

Look, you just can't take the ideal of your system of government & compare it to the flawed reality of the other side. And that's true of both you rabid statists & rabid libertarians.

/science/reason? this government? Man, you're in some serious ivory tower or a river in Egypt or something.
 
2014-01-26 07:54:32 PM  

MayoSlather: Why is that stupid, I don't see non-aggression as being the calling card of libertarianism. It's sort of just there. It's the economic policy that the writer and others take issue with. It's basis is "I got mine f you." Most liberals, and buddhists alike agree with the social aspects of libertarianism, but it's the economic part where it really falls flat on its face.


You're joking, right? The NAP is  the linchpin of libertarian thought. It's the basis for the entire philosophy. Literally everything to do with libertarianism comes from the NAP and the idea that you shouldn't use force to compel others to do something. It's why taxation is viewed as theft, it's why interventionism in foreign policy is looked down on, it's why equality of treatment is so important. It's even why most libertarians disagree with things like the Civil Rights Act (since that's government force compelling people to behave a certain way) and free market economic policy (because people should be free to conduct their own business free of government compulsion).

You simply cannot be libertarian and not subscribe to the NAP. It would be like claiming to be a Christian and then saying that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a god.
 
2014-01-26 08:02:03 PM  

Baz744: Normal people understand, for example, that a woman (or a man, but usually a woman) can be coerced to perform sex acts she doesn't care to via economic coercion.


Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.
 
2014-01-26 08:02:38 PM  

legion_of_doo: Are you seriously taking public education & saying that's why government works? The public school system is exactly why we send our kids to private school. No amount of additional funding to the schools will make the inherently flawed system better.


Private schools on average perform worse because a big heap of them are religious schools that don't teach reality. And everyone gets an education with public schools not just those that can afford it. The quality issues have more to do with state's rights than anything else. If it was run at the federal level there would be national standard and the same dollars spent on every student. But do I need to present to you a flawless system for it to be valid?

Furthermore, there are schools in Europe purely run by government that perform better.

And yes, science and reason. Americans have given up on something better and have settled for shiat because it seems difficult to achieve. It will take a movement, with millions participating, but wealth inequality could just be that spring board to push change.
 
2014-01-26 08:19:51 PM  
Libertarians are self-centred and care about no one and nothing except their own happiness. (Western) buddhists are self-centred and care about no one and nothing except their own enlightenment. Where's the conflict?
 
2014-01-26 08:25:36 PM  

FarkingHateFark: Baz744: Normal people understand, for example, that a woman (or a man, but usually a woman) can be coerced to perform sex acts she doesn't care to via economic coercion.

Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.


It's so simple.   Libertarians believe the woman is free to choose.

As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.
 
2014-01-26 09:41:07 PM  
Charity and forced wealth distribution are wildly different concepts.
We could exist as a free society and still care for the poor.
If history is any judge, that is the only way it will ever happen.
 
2014-01-26 09:43:01 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.


So... You think prostitutes work to feed their children?

That's adorable.
 
2014-01-26 09:44:29 PM  

orbister: Libertarians are self-centred and care about no one and nothing except their own happiness. (Western) buddhists are self-centred and care about no one and nothing except their own enlightenment. Where's the conflict?


They both exist to create a world that benefits all those around them.
 
2014-01-26 09:51:53 PM  

MayoSlather: Is there a rebuttal in this thread to any liberal argument about how public schools, roads, research, welfare is a bad thing or in someway is replaceable by libertarianism?


Well, yeah. We do those things privately, for far less money, see far better results, and all people are free to be a part of the system.

Our privately owned power plants are doing fine, our national electric grid is collapsing.
Private schools provide better education at far lower costs.
Privately built roads are better constructed and maintained than those by the public.

Private ambulances pay to park in parking lots, alleyways, and anywhere else they can to make it to the customer first, while public ambulances sit at a central location and get there whenever they can.

Private entities are beholden to their customers, or else they lose money and go out of business. Public entities answer to no one, have no standards, and reign for generations.

Imagine what government run supermarkets, cell phone providers, or auto mechanics would be like.
 
2014-01-26 10:15:24 PM  

Dwindle: Vlad_the_Inaner: As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.

So... You think prostitutes work to feed their children?

That's adorable.


Only the once who screwed up at work.
 
2014-01-26 10:48:01 PM  

Dwindle: MayoSlather: Is there a rebuttal in this thread to any liberal argument about how public schools, roads, research, welfare is a bad thing or in someway is replaceable by libertarianism?

Well, yeah. We do those things privately, for far less money, see far better results, and all people are free to be a part of the system.

Our privately owned power plants are doing fine, our national electric grid is collapsing.
Private schools provide better education at far lower costs.
Privately built roads are better constructed and maintained than those by the public.

Private ambulances pay to park in parking lots, alleyways, and anywhere else they can to make it to the customer first, while public ambulances sit at a central location and get there whenever they can.

Private entities are beholden to their customers, or else they lose money and go out of business. Public entities answer to no one, have no standards, and reign for generations.

Imagine what government run supermarkets, cell phone providers, or auto mechanics would be like.


Aww, look another tween just read Ayn Rand. Congratulations. You read a book! Isn't that exciting!

/ Please share details about the government's "national electric grid". That was my favorite part.
 
2014-01-26 10:48:20 PM  
Buddhism?  Libertarianism?  -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus.
 
2014-01-26 10:51:45 PM  

jaytkay: Please share details about the government's "national electric grid". That was my favorite part.


He must have meant this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Electric_Reliability_Corp o ration

...you know, the nonprofit corporation.
 
2014-01-26 11:14:13 PM  

super_grass: trappedspirit: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: jigger: It's true. There was no civilization before the income tax.

Yeah, the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on levying taxes. That's an astute observation.

I thought the ancient Egyptian Empire was built on the backs of slaves.  And then they told those slaves to stand very still because they had a whole ancient empire on their backs and it could slide off if they stood up.  That's in the history books.

Some research show that the people who built the pyramids weren't actually slaves, they were paid laborers.


Some research show that it was aliens.
 
2014-01-26 11:45:35 PM  

FnkyTwn: That's a pretty snazzy zippered shirt he's got there. What am I reading again?

[media.salon.com image 620x412]


I RTFA. He sorta sucks as a Buddhist too. He's a mess.
 
2014-01-26 11:58:40 PM  

jigger: So part of Buddhism requires the use of force on people if they don't make the "right" decisions when it comes to "helping" people?

Um, no. No. Where on earth did you come up with this conclusion? You lost me.
 
2014-01-27 11:57:59 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: Baz744: Normal people understand, for example, that a woman (or a man, but usually a woman) can be coerced to perform sex acts she doesn't care to via economic coercion.

Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.

It's so simple.   Libertarians believe the woman is free to choose.

As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.


Yeah no, none of what you just wrote is true. But thanks for playing Burn The Strawman!

Using coercion to force someone to do something is wrong under libertarian thought; it really doesn't matter what form that coercion takes, whether physical, fiscal, societal, or something else. The scenario described would definitely fall under the heading of "using coercion to get someone to act against their own desires".
 
2014-01-27 05:36:43 PM  

Dwindle: Vlad_the_Inaner: As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.

So... You think prostitutes work to feed their children?

That's adorable.


What's adorable is you think that Baz774 was referring to prostitutes as opposed to people who put up with sexual harassment at their job for fear of losing it.

/and yeah, I think sex workers with children work to keep them fed.  Most humans want to feed their children.
 
2014-01-27 05:49:39 PM  

FarkingHateFark: Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.

It's so simple. Libertarians believe the woman is free to choose.

As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.

Yeah no, none of what you just wrote is true. But thanks for playing Burn The Strawman!


I'm shocked, simply shocked to hear you say Milton Friedman constructed a strawman!

ecx.images-amazon.com

It's simple as this:  Free to choose The boss proposes an simple economic exchange.  The woman chooses to provide the boss with an intimate personal service, say with her vagina.  In exchange the boss chooses to provide the woman with continued employment and a steady paycheck.  They are both free to choose in this.  Just as Friedman talks about in his book.

None of that violates NAP.  Ditto with 9 year old Alterboy Timmy providing an intimate personal service to Father Frances.  Under NAP it's none of our business, its between Timmy and Frances.  But in this society such behavior is termed sexual harassment via economic or statutory rape coercion.

You're welcome
 
2014-01-27 05:51:33 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: economic or statutory rape coercion


err, make that 'economic coercion or statutory rape'.
 
2014-01-27 05:57:00 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: Explain to me how that isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle. Because it sounds an awful like rape to me.

It's so simple. Libertarians believe the woman is free to choose.

As long as she can choose to starve and to let her children starve, it's all good.

Yeah no, none of what you just wrote is true. But thanks for playing Burn The Strawman!

I'm shocked, simply shocked to hear you say Milton Friedman constructed a strawman!

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 224x346]

It's simple as this:  Free to choose The boss proposes an simple economic exchange.  The woman chooses to provide the boss with an intimate personal service, say with her vagina.  In exchange the boss chooses to provide the woman with continued employment and a steady paycheck.  They are both free to choose in this.  Just as Friedman talks about in his book.

None of that violates NAP.  Ditto with 9 year old Alterboy Timmy providing an intimate personal service to Father Frances.  Under NAP it's none of our business, its between Timmy and Frances.  But in this society such behavior is termed sexual harassment via economic or statutory rape coercion.

You're welcome


Anyone can claim anything is written in a book. Unless you can cite page and paragraph of that particular book that has that exact scenario I'm going to assume you're lying. So get cracking and provide some actual, you know, proof.
 
2014-01-27 06:08:16 PM  

FarkingHateFark: It's simple as this: Free to choose The boss proposes an simple economic exchange. The woman chooses to provide the boss with an intimate personal service, say with her vagina. In exchange the boss chooses to provide the woman with continued employment and a steady paycheck. They are both free to choose in this. Just as Friedman talks about in his book.

None of that violates NAP. Ditto with 9 year old Alterboy Timmy providing an intimate personal service to Father Frances. Under NAP it's none of our business, its between Timmy and Frances. But in this society such behavior is termed sexual harassment via economic or statutory rape coercion.

You're welcome

Anyone can claim anything is written in a book. Unless you can cite page and paragraph of that particular book that has that exact scenario I'm going to assume you're lying. So get cracking and provide some actual, you know, proof.


And while I'm doing this you're going to show the examples above actually Do violate NAP, right?

/btw, there's a TV series if the words on paper thing is too tough for you.
 
2014-01-27 06:20:19 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: It's simple as this: Free to choose The boss proposes an simple economic exchange. The woman chooses to provide the boss with an intimate personal service, say with her vagina. In exchange the boss chooses to provide the woman with continued employment and a steady paycheck. They are both free to choose in this. Just as Friedman talks about in his book.

None of that violates NAP. Ditto with 9 year old Alterboy Timmy providing an intimate personal service to Father Frances. Under NAP it's none of our business, its between Timmy and Frances. But in this society such behavior is termed sexual harassment via economic or statutory rape coercion.

You're welcome

Anyone can claim anything is written in a book. Unless you can cite page and paragraph of that particular book that has that exact scenario I'm going to assume you're lying. So get cracking and provide some actual, you know, proof.

And while I'm doing this you're going to show the examples above actually Do violate NAP, right?

/btw, there's a TV series if the words on paper thing is too tough for you.


No, because until you show that Friedman actually advanced those scenarios I have nothing to say. It should be plainly obvious that coercing someone with threat of job loss or abusing a child violate the NAP. If you can't see that then maybe  you're the sociopath who doesn't see those actions as inherently aggressive.

So get crackin', boyo. Time's a wastin' and you have to put up or shut up. Can't just start claiming shiat then not provide evidence when called on it.
 
2014-01-27 06:32:59 PM  

FarkingHateFark: No, because until you show that Friedman actually advanced those scenarios I have nothing to say. It should be plainly obvious that coercing someone with threat of job loss or abusing a child violate the NAP. If you can't see that then maybe you're the sociopath who doesn't see those actions as inherently aggressive.


Oh I get it.  I can't refer to a general thesis in Friedman's work if he doesn't use that exact example.

Wrong.  That's not how things work.

Now I think those actions are wrong.  Immoral.  I also don't think they violate NAP.  Which is why I think that people who claim NAP is all that is needed in the world are idiots.

So you claim those activities violate NAP.   Does the boss hold a gun to the head of the woman?  Does he break her nose, or pick her pocket (to cite Jefferson's criteria).  No?   Its an exchange.   From unequal economic positions.  That was given.   Likewise, Timmy and Father Frances.  No gun.  No force.  Just an abuse of someone's trust because they are too young to make an informed decision.

Go ahead.   Cite the force that makes those two examples violations of NAP.

And I leave you with this Milton Friedman quote.

"When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom." (emphasis added)
 
2014-01-27 07:08:39 PM  

Baz744: "Libertarianism" as an ideology does not find sexual harassment objectionable. It is perfectly okay with "blow me or I'll fire you," on the fantasy that somehow the market will correct such behavior "if it really is bad."


Exactly. If she finds the proposal objectionable (ie:'really bad'), then she quits. And tells her friends, who may choose to quit if they work there, or choose not to do business with that company. If enough people do that, the business if affected. If the business is affected, they fire the guy who caused the problem with his advances.

What's the problem?
 
2014-01-27 07:17:33 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: No, because until you show that Friedman actually advanced those scenarios I have nothing to say. It should be plainly obvious that coercing someone with threat of job loss or abusing a child violate the NAP. If you can't see that then maybe you're the sociopath who doesn't see those actions as inherently aggressive.

Oh I get it.  I can't refer to a general thesis in Friedman's work if he doesn't use that exact example.

Wrong.  That's not how things work.


Yes it is. Otherwise you're putting words in the man's mouth. It is literally building a strawman. I'll take this as your concession that Friedman never once said any of the things you attributed to him before. 

Now I think those actions are wrong.  Immoral.

I agree.

I also don't think they violate NAP.  Which is why I think that people who claim NAP is all that is needed in the world are idiots.

I disagree. Both of your examples are of individuals using the power/influence they have over another to compel that person to do something against their own interests. That is a textbook violation of the NAP.

So you claim those activities violate NAP.   Does the boss hold a gun to the head of the woman?  Does he break her nose, or pick her pocket (to cite Jefferson's criteria).  No?   Its an exchange.   From unequal economic positions.  That was given.   Likewise, Timmy and Father Frances.  No gun.  No force.  Just an abuse of someone's trust because they are too young to make an informed decision.

You seem to think that only physical violence can be viewed as aggression. What if I blackmail you to pay me money or I'll reveal an affair you had with your wife's sister, destroying your family? That's a very aggressive action but no physical violence is involved.

Also, in your example of the boss requiring sexual favors for the woman to remain employed she is most definitely having her pocket picked as she will lose her source of income if she doesn't comply. Again, very much against the concept of the NAP. 

Go ahead.   Cite the force that makes those two examples violations of NAP.

I just did, and did so rather swimmingly, I think.

And I leave you with this Milton Friedman quote.

"When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom." (emphasis added)


He's right there, but we're not talking about legislating morality. Friedman here is likely talking about outlawingthings like prostitution, drugs, or gambling. None of those things are inherently wrong, they are only wrong within the prism of a certain moral framework. And as long as no coercion is present (for instance, as long as the sex worker is free to leave and wasn't kidnapped from Russia or something) there's no violation of the NAP in any of them.

Really it just seems like you want to rail against libertarianism without fully grasping what it is. So rather than think you're an idiot I think you're just grossly misinformed. Hopefully this discussion has helped dispel some myths you've been subjected to.
 
2014-01-27 08:16:29 PM  

FarkingHateFark: Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: No, because until you show that Friedman actually advanced those scenarios I have nothing to say. It should be plainly obvious that coercing someone with threat of job loss or abusing a child violate the NAP. If you can't see that then maybe you're the sociopath who doesn't see those actions as inherently aggressive.

Oh I get it.  I can't refer to a general thesis in Friedman's work if he doesn't use that exact example.

Wrong.  That's not how things work.

Yes it is. Otherwise you're putting words in the man's mouth. It is literally building a strawman. I'll take this as your concession that Friedman never once said any of the things you attributed to him before. 

Now I think those actions are wrong.  Immoral.

I agree.

I also don't think they violate NAP.  Which is why I think that people who claim NAP is all that is needed in the world are idiots.

I disagree. Both of your examples are of individuals using the power/influence they have over another to compel that person to do something against their own interests. That is a textbook violation of the NAP.

So you claim those activities violate NAP.   Does the boss hold a gun to the head of the woman?  Does he break her nose, or pick her pocket (to cite Jefferson's criteria).  No?   Its an exchange.   From unequal economic positions.  That was given.   Likewise, Timmy and Father Frances.  No gun.  No force.  Just an abuse of someone's trust because they are too young to make an informed decision.

You seem to think that only physical violence can be viewed as aggression. What if I blackmail you to pay me money or I'll reveal an affair you had with your wife's sister, destroying your family? That's a very aggressive action but no physical violence is involved.

Also, in your example of the boss requiring sexual favors for the woman to remain employed she is most definitely having her pocket picked as she will lose her source of income if she doesn't comply. Again, very much again ...


Look, its called NAP not because it restricts dick moves  (in fact I think its a disingenuous ploy to label some dick moves as moral and right.) It's called NAP because it is supposed to differentiate initiatory force from retaliatory force.  Article here

Now friend, let me tell you where you find yourself having stated "definitely having her pocket picked as she will lose her source of income "

Congratulations.  you are now the libertarian who thinks an employee OWNS her paycheck before she's done the work.  That that money does not belong to the boss until she actually does the work.  That he does not have the freedom to choose to fire her for any reason he sees fit.

Enjoy your corner.  Eventually the paint might dry.

I'd love to see you at a libertarian gathering  "Hi, I'm a guy who thinks, absent a contract explicitly saying otherwise, there are cases where an employee has a right to a continued future paychecks, even when the employer wishes otherwise"  I'd love to see how that flies.
 
2014-01-27 08:33:39 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Now friend, let me tell you where you find yourself having stated "definitely having her pocket picked as she will lose her source of income "

Congratulations.  you are now the libertarian who thinks an employee OWNS her paycheck before she's done the work.  That that money does not belong to the boss until she actually does the work.  That he does not have the freedom to choose to fire her for any reason he sees fit.

Enjoy your corner.  Eventually the paint might dry.

I'd love to see you at a libertarian gathering  "Hi, I'm a guy who thinks, absent a contract explicitly saying otherwise, there are cases where an employee has a right to a continued future paychecks, even when the employer wishes otherwise"  I'd love to see how that flies.


Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things. I try to throw you a bone and you then claim I've somehow painted myself into a corner.

Bullshiat. If I hire someone for a given job then guess what? There's a contract on what the job entails. If I change the terms of the contract later by trying to force the employee to do something immoral I don't get to claim "Well if you don't like it quit." No, I've broken our contract, implied or written it makes no difference, and my presumably-former employee now has a tort against me. Now, in the real world, is that tort going to pan out? Probably not. But that's one of the benefits for employees to form unions (which, surprise!, are not anathema to libertarian thought as the employees have every right to form their own association and work together to compel honesty and fairness from their employer).

I'm sorry if I've somehow broken your pigeon-hole idea of what libertarianism is but really, you ought to get out more and get involved with actual libertarians. The results may surprise you.
 
2014-01-27 09:04:14 PM  

FarkingHateFark: Bullshiat. If I hire someone for a given job then guess what? There's a contract on what the job entails. If I change the terms of the contract later by trying to force the employee to do something immoral I don't get to claim "Well if you don't like it quit." No, I've broken our contract, implied or written it makes no difference, and my presumably-former employee now has a tort against me. Now, in the real world, is that tort going to pan out? Probably not. But that's one of the benefits for employees to form unions (which, surprise!, are not anathema to libertarian thought as the employees have every right to form their own association and work together to compel honesty and fairness from their employer).


Yay!  You're the libertarian who thinks reducing the freedom of employers via GOVERNMENT FORCE is OK too.  (or who did you think torts were argued in front of)   Ditto implied contracts.  Ditto regulations against sexual harassment.

Go ahead.  Tell me why else an employer is restricted by an 'implied' contract except by government regulation.

Now don't forget "The initiation of force is the start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint.  "

/and while your at it, explain how the asshat boss is using physical coersion or using the law to coerce.
 
2014-01-28 01:26:36 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: FarkingHateFark: Bullshiat. If I hire someone for a given job then guess what? There's a contract on what the job entails. If I change the terms of the contract later by trying to force the employee to do something immoral I don't get to claim "Well if you don't like it quit." No, I've broken our contract, implied or written it makes no difference, and my presumably-former employee now has a tort against me. Now, in the real world, is that tort going to pan out? Probably not. But that's one of the benefits for employees to form unions (which, surprise!, are not anathema to libertarian thought as the employees have every right to form their own association and work together to compel honesty and fairness from their employer).

Yay!  You're the libertarian who thinks reducing the freedom of employers via GOVERNMENT FORCE is OK too.  (or who did you think torts were argued in front of)   Ditto implied contracts.  Ditto regulations against sexual harassment.

Go ahead.  Tell me why else an employer is restricted by an 'implied' contract except by government regulation.

Now don't forget "The initiation of force is the start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint.  "

/and while your at it, explain how the asshat boss is using physical coersion or using the law to coerce.


Yay! You're the idiot who thinks libertarians are anarchists!
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report