Messages

I believe it's in the fail quotes thread, but Shane would be the most likely to know for sure. It wasn't that long ago... wait, in terms of internet time, it's been a while actually. (Like a couple weeks)

Cheers

Hopefully what was written there should give me enough of what I need to counter the "private property == coercion" arguments.

Their position is that everything belongs to everyone, and therefore stopping someone else from say living in your house is coercion. Most of these people then turn around and make a distinction between what they call personal property and private property, which is discussed at some length on another thread on this forum, so I won't re-hash it here.

Although it has Marxian undertones, the source of it is actually the Bible. Acts 2:44-45.

Would you mind linking that thread? It would be much appreciated 

You assume that anything in Marxism makes practical sense.  How do you know Marx didn't write that after being refused the use of a relative's home (due to his complete incompetence with the large amount of money he had leaving him a rich and chronically destitute man who got down to living in a two room apartment with his whole family and servant/mistress at one point)?

I don't. It's just that the paradigm of property == coercion seems very Marxian to me. Maybe be I'm wrong, but it's something I'm trying to understand, as I'm really struggling to get into the mindset of people whom hold that paradigm to be true.

One thing that sticks out to me is this:

As a number of people have already pointed out— and you have pointedly ignored— the very concept of private property is itself "coercive", because you are taking a resource for yourself and refusing others access to it; in the absence of any governing authority to set rules on such things, there is nothing to stop someone else from "coercing" it away from you.

This is something that I cannot wrap my head around: How exactly is the concept of private property "coercive"? What does that mean in a practical sense? Does anyone here know enough about Marxism to be able to answer that?

[always]

Excellent. My problem with the "human nature" argument is that whenever I encounter it and challenge people on it, it always degenerates into hobbesian nihilism alongs the lines of "libertarianism can't work because humans are assholes!" If you challenge them on that (like saying "if humans are assholes, and the government is made up of humans, then how is the state meant to overcome human nature?"), then it just further degenerates into juvenile misanthropy.

Basically: "We need the government because «insert thought-terminating cliché here»"

[MASSIVE]

Hey guys, been away for a while (real life stuff, et cetera). I came back due to both having more time on my hands, and because of the ostensible topic of discussion. Without further adieu:

Discussing politics on a brony image board pretty much anywhere can usually bring out the stupidity and ignorance in people, especially if you support a political ethology that is either infamous (fascism), or considered "unrealistic" (communism/libertarianism), and when someone posted an image explaining the non-agression principle, this led to arguments in the comments. I chimed in with a link to Shane's video on how to argue with statism (great video BTW Shane ), to which a user by the handle of TexasUberAlles responded with:

"Real life doesn't work that way" is the most succinct counterargument to libertarianism; it's not reality's fault that libertarians demand and then promptly ignore further clarification.

Since the burden of proof was on him, I asked him how reality contradicted libertarianism, to which he responded with, well...take a look for yourselves:

I'll explain it to you, but you're clearly very far down the rabbit hole and I am quite certain that you will not understand it.

There are obviously a lot of variations on "libertarian"— with varying degrees of lunacy/practicality— but the underlying reason why libertarian ideology has no real chance of ever bridging the gulf between theory and practice is that, like all belief systems based on selfishness and ideological sociopathy, it ignores a number of very fundamental aspects of human nature; primarily, that when you put a bunch of people in the same space and let them make up their own personal rules for everything with no accountability to anyone else, it's only a matter of time before cannibalism— metaphorical or literal— sets in. It simply is not conducive to a stable society in any way at all to allow people in an age of internal combustion and automatic weapons to act as if each one of them is an island unto himself, beholden to no one and nothing and having no responsibility aside from his own selfish interests. That is 100% opposed to the very concept of "society", and as even a casual perusal of world history shows, any attempt to order a system along such lines descends almost immediately into either total anarchy or dog-eat-dog warlord rule; which I suppose sounds great to those who fantasize that they would somehow be the warlords, but to people who live in the real world sounds like the living definition of "failed state". All of those pesky rules and regulations that libertarians and other anti-statists rail against? They are the only thing that keeps bigger dogs from eating you, and there are always bigger dogs. As a number of people have already pointed out— and you have pointedly ignored— the very concept of private property is itself "coercive", because you are taking a resource for yourself and refusing others access to it; in the absence of any governing authority to set rules on such things, there is nothing to stop someone else from "coercing" it away from you. "Voluntary compliance" is an absurd myth, and one which self-evidently does not work in actual practice; human beings— especially those with the profound sense of entitlement and self-righteousness that comes with inherited wealth and other unearned fortune— do not voluntarily comply with anything detrimental to themselves without some kind of impetus toward societal or communal responsibility. If telling people to behave was all that was needed to ensure proper behavior, no one would ever exceed the posted speed limit even when there were no traffic enforcement officers around. An overabundance of rules and regulations is of course detrimental to progress and opportunity, but a lack of rules is a sure and certain guarantee of failure.

The absurd Randian übermensch belief that one exceptional individual can prosper entirely of his own awesomeness without any input or constraint of government or society is another absurd myth, and one that sounds suspiciously like a paraphrasing of "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS-A ME!" to anyone who has ever spent time around small children.

This to me reads like a MASSIVE objectivist strawman, thus I'm wondering if I should dismantle his response piecemeal, or just call it on the strawman that it is. One thing that stands out to me, and was mentioned by others in the comments was the idea that property is coercive, which correct me if I'm wrong, was/is a cornerstone of Marxism, and supported wholeheartedly by the anarchist bombers of the late 1800s/early 1900s.

The picture and accompanying comments can found here: https://derpiboo.ru/648398

BTW "sporting type" rifles/shotguns include semi auto, bolt and pump action, am I correct?

The types you mentioned are all legal within the country. Hell, even fully auto weapons is legal as long as you don't fire them. From the experience of those whom have gotten firearm licences, as long as the gun isn't a fully automatic weapon (even then, as mentioned above), it's not too difficult to get a firearm of pretty much any configuration.

On a related note, suppressors are completely deregulated over here, meaning that you can get a suppressor for pretty much any gun on earth. The law generally assumes that you own a licences gun, thus there is no need to regulate a single aspect of a gun.

Do you have no gun zones by the way, or not? Just curious.

Off the top of my head, there is no specific no-gun zones, in that there aren't signs that point out "no guns allowed."

It's generally implied that if you legally own a gun, that you a responsible and civil with it (I.e. not carrying it out in the open in public; doing that will generally summon the Armed Offenders Squad of the police )

As a New Zealander, I can corroborate this. Shootings are relatively rare over here, even accounting for higher gun ownership than Aus.

[really]

Ugh, where to begin with all this...

First of, I'm not a fan of her work, as she falls into the typical feminist cliché of invoking things like "the patriarchy," "misogyny," and "objectification." She egregiously misuses those words in my opinion.

Taken by herself, she pretty innocuous in her message...but what really gets me is how too many people whom should know better are taking her and her message seriously. Go look up youtube user (and fellow New Zealander) Dangerous Analysis:http://www.youtube.com/user/dangerousanalysis to see how shaky her arguments are. Yet it is galling to see a lot of gaming journos and general internet commentators take her seriously, and consider her series "well researched and informative" :/

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the reason for a lot of her support is due to the fact that said journos and commentators are self-conscious regarding the supposed state of gender and gaming culture, and are supporting her more as a show of "see see, we're not sexist!" than of her message.

As for her genuine supporters, I wonder what will happen if and when she decides to abruptly stop doing tropes vs. women...actually, I already know, you already know: They'll finger us criticisers saying that this is "all your fault," even when our criticisms (for the most part) are quite valid.

Doesn't seem to be working for me

Hey people, been AFK for a while, but have come back with a question that some of you may be able to answer better than me 

On twitter, one of my former teachers retweeted a statement from an ITSM consultant about how the current fluctuations in the value of Bitcoins represents a speculative bubble. I disagreed with him, because (at least to my knowledge on austrian-school economics) there was no encouragement from financial institutions or government to buy Bitcoins, thus the recent price increases were due to increased demand relative to supply, rather than a misallocation of resources. He then responded with something regarding the perversities of Bitcoins (whatever the hell that means) 

Here's the discussion here, for those interested: https://twitter.com/davebremer/status/322422248046735360

It made me wonder: Is there a Bitcoin bubble? Could it be defined as a bubble within a more mainstream economic view?

In case you haven't covered this one before:

"Without the government, how will we deal with market failures?"

It did pass, completely unopposed.

Source

Oh for fucks sake!  Combine that with the latest TPP negotiations happening in my backyard, this has been a terrible week for freedom...

There were several wins for liberty on Tuesday:

Gay marriage passed in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, and Minnesota voters voted down a ban.

New Hampshire banned the state Income Tax.

Florida, Alabama, Missouri, and Wyoming all voted to nullify the insurance mandate portion of Obamacare.

Massachusetts and Montana both passed medical marijuana initiatives.

And Colorado and Washington voters legalized marijuana outright.

Good news to all, and congrats to the voters of these states! Nicely done!

See this. This is the kind of news I want to see coming out of america . Not the NDAA, persecution of whistleblowers, or the government sucking up to corporations. I think we've all had enough of that.