Stefan Molyneux is an atheist, an author, a philosopher, an online radio show host (he’s fond of declaring it the “world’s most popular philosophy show”), and is apparently frequently invited to speak at Libertarian conferences. His book on atheism (I haven’t even seen it) has a foreword by Peter Boghossian, the hot new It Boy of the atheist movement. He’s a fanatical and extreme Libertarian who advocates for statelessness, Bitcoin, and other weird, impractical, libertarian schemes. He’s also a misogynist idiot.
Here’s a short excerpt from a two hour youtube rant in which he assigns all responsibility for all the evil in the world to…women.
You don’t want to sit through it? I don’t blame you. It makes no sense at all. He’s talking about how assholes come to be, and it’s all silly buggers about a complex character trait that’s transmitted in an absurdly simple and nonsensical way. So I’ve translated his rant into genetics-speak to help myself understand what he’s trying to say, since I’m not fluent in either Libertarian or Misogynist.
-
Assholism is a strongly heritable trait.
-
Assholism is only transmitted by males; women do not carry it, but only passively enable male carriers to transmit it to the next generation.
-
Assholism is under extremely strong sexual selection. Women will only have sex with men who carry it, spurning those who lack it.
-
Assholism is otherwise so deleterious that the trait would go to extinction in a single generation, absent support from women. It is basically a conditional lethal mutation.
-
Assholism is strongly dominant and epistatic to all other personality traits: if you inherit the assholism factor from your father, you are an asshole, no matter what other inheritance or experience you have.
-
On the other hand, males are completely plastic. Their personalities are entirely defined by the influence of women.
-
The influence of women is invariably directed towards fostering assholism in their sons, never towards ameliorating it.
-
Therefore, while men are invariably the perpetrators of all evil, from brutal prison guards to nuclear weapons, they are actually blameless puppets, manipulated by their asshole factor, inherited from their fathers. Their fathers are also not to blame, because their mothers sexually selected them.
-
Final conclusion: Women are evil, and everything is their fault.
None of it makes any sense. And this guy is amazingly popular. I’ve looked through a few other youtube videos featuring him or criticisms of him, and there always troops of fawning Libertarian fanbois drooling over him and declaring how reasonable and sensible he is. It’s a mystery. It’s also a mystery that he gets away with calling his crap “philosophy”. I keep expecting a mob of real philosophers to show up with truncheons and rough him up to get him to stop. Although, of course, the philosophy goon squad never shows up for Plantinga, either, so I’m constantly disappointed.
Another mystery: he’s Canadian. Canadians are always so nice and rational when I meet them, but apparently the national psyche harbors a few bizarre twists here and there.
Makes sense to me: I’m putty in the hands of my wife (I just wish she’d stop using me to repair the windows)
I used to be a fan of Molyneux. I still think that he’s got a lot of good ideas on the state and voluntarism in families (basically: there is nothing wrong with breaking off ties with family members who abuse you). He’s an advocate for raising kids in an environment of reason instead of “because I told you so” and spankings and other beatings as punishment.
However, I stopped listening to him for the most part after Mandela’s death, wherein he made an atrocious statement (backed up with racist blogs as sources, no less) that South Africa was better off under apartheid. Then when he posted a “review” on Facebook of Maleficent declaring it to be anti-male propaganda, I finally had enough entirely. I’ve since unfriended him on Facebook and unsubscribed on Youtube.
I guess Molyneux is a walking example that people aren’t always either full of great ideas or full of terrible ones. He’s a mixed bag of both. It’s sad because for a long time I actually did use him as an example of a pretty reasonable libertarian, especially because he’s just as much against corporatism and monopolies as most liberals would be.
However, I can’t in good conscience even attempt to defend his racism or misogyny.
Yes, more than a few. The ones with skating skills become hockey goons.
He’s also a climate change denialist. He must know what he’s talking about because he says so.
thelastholdout
Well, that would be the libertarian dudebro version of reason in which everything they firmly believe in is reason.
I can clearly see his reason beyond “because I say so” in his views on women.
In short: He may talk the talk on this issue, but he doesn’t walk the walk, because everything else he says and does clearly contradicts that message
The philosophy goon squad! I can picture them now – there’s Bill “the Razor” Ockham, idly cleaning his nails with his trademark monogrammed switchblade, then next to him we have bad boy Jez Bentham, who learned every trick he could from watching over violent prisons. Then Benny “The Grinder” Spinoza, Mad Mary Wollstonecraft, “Fingers” Wittgenstein, and finally their shady getaway driver – Zeno the Greek (who has never yet been hit by a speeding arrow, and can outrun Achilles himself in the gang’s battered old Fiat Testudo).
Ayn Rand applied for a place in the crew, but you actually have to be a philosopher to join.
Not born in Canada. Just had to throw that in there in an attempt to clean up Canada’s reputation. Trust me. We have enough home-grown assholes.
That said, I read “assholism” as “alcoholism” and was very confused. It didn’t get much better when I read it correctly but it was a different sort of confusion.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @ #5
I love this line and I’m going to steal it so that I can pass myself off as clever and well-spoken. Do you mind?
Blondin @ 4:
WHAT??!?!?! A libertarian who does not accept the mountains of evidence for AGW? While next, you will be telling me that fundamentalist Christians have no time for that evolution stuff!
Sorry for the snark, but unless proven otherwise I always take climate change denial as a given in libertarians. Sadly, experience has taught me I am mostly right in making that assumption.
Also not surprised on the racism that thelastholdout pointed out @2. . Libertarians always seem to be on the side of the powerful and privileged of society.
Ugh, meant to say “what next” not “while next”!
I recently stumbled on a podcast series called “Hardcore History” by Dan Carlin. I would highly recommend his work. I find it thoughtful and interesting and where I disagree with him, he still makes interesting points.
That’s a preamble to say that one day I was just looking through YouTube to see what else this Dan Carlin guy had done, and he participated in an extended interview with this Molyneux weirdo. Carlin did a decent job of sliding past the silly glibertarian nonsense that bubbled up from time to time, which makes me appreciate Carlin, but he was pretty enthusiastic about breaking bread with this guy.
Even with that little exposure — believe me, I didn’t go hunting for more Molyneux after that — I could tell he was a fucking nutter. Libertarianism so infects its host that it’s obvious you’re two words from gold-standard discussions at all times. It’s like the way I can tell someone is about to babble about Jesus just from the cadence of their voice.
Couple more things:
1) The obvious conclusion to be drawn from Molyneux’s rant is that he should voluntarily take himself out of the gene pool.
2) @thelastholdout–That is darkly hilarious. It’s is amazing how “racism” always trumps “freedom” with libertarian assholes. If you had to pick an obvious example of state-driven oppression, Apartheid would be pretty high on the list.
But no, “real” oppression is gun registration.
Is the video made by him or one of his detractors? That thing looks like shit
I mean if you have something to say, why go all creepy-lizard-CGI-101-avatar?
He’s basically a pseudointellectual cult leader. He’s also an ungrateful asshole. He once reacted sarcastically to a fan’s $5 donation, prompting a flood of sarcastic 5¢ donations from foes.
“but apparently the national psyche harbors a few bizarre twists here and there.”
i.e. the Quebecquois stalker…whazzizname Markuse?
I keep forgetting that, as a libertarian, I’m supposed to hate women and non-whites, and I’m supposed to ignore science that makes me uncomfortable or contradicts my subjective beliefs. Thanks for reminding me. Just as I should expect liberals to buy into woo and to make the right decisions for me.
Wait. You supposedly don’t buy the woo. Could these generalizations be just plain stupid. Stupid like all libertarians, right? Got to love the stereotypes you try to pigeonhole me into.
Oh, we’Re really sorry, aarongrow
Sadly, so far we didn’t know you existed.
Unfortunately all your brethren turned out to be exactly like that. Maybe stick around and really, really show us that there’s ONE libertarian who isn’t a shitty “I got mine fuck you” asshole.
doubtthat, #11:
That’s not his decision to make. Didn’t you listen? Women are the gatekeepers. It’s entirely up to them whether he reproduces or not. And according to his own theory, he has a better than average chance.
Always a red flag. With flashing neon lights and the fog machine turned up to High.
1. Oh please, can’t he convert to fundie xianity? He would fit in much better. Women are one of their favorite hate targets.
2. And he can make them look bad instead. Not that they need the help.
Just when I was ready to despair. (Some more, this has been happening since Bush was elected.). There is a Dark Side to Canada. They have elected Steven Harper the Bush clone three times and once had Goodyear, a creationist, as head of their science section.
(basically: there is nothing wrong with breaking off ties with family members who abuse you)
Seriously? That’s practically a no-brainer, not exactly a shining example of ground-breaking rational thought.
He’s an advocate for raising kids in an environment of reason instead of “because I told you so” and spankings and other beatings as punishment.
Yeah, that sounds really nice and all, AFTER your kids have actually learned how to use reason. Until then, kids kinda have to follow their parents’ and teachers’ lead. I remember being a kid: sometimes reason worked with me, other times it didn’t. Humans are not born with fully-formed reasoning brains; reason is something that has to be LEARNED, and that learning is an uphill battle against strong counter-currents of emotion and hardwired animal instinct.
So…what other examples of innelekshal achievement has this Molyneux guy offered? What I’ve seen so far leaves me unimpressed.
I would be happy to spend my life futilely trying to dispel you of your misconceptions, but, I’m too busy pissing on homeless people and laughing at women and their “problems”. After that I’ll busy kicking kittens.
Loonytarians tend towards dumb, sociopathic trolls.
You are matching the stereotype well and have climbed into the pigeonhole.
Next up, the Boring. Gibbertarians are boring. It’s a few simple minded (and wrong) slogans strung together. I was a Loonytarian myself in the 1970’s. For a few weeks. Nothing has changed since then.
And finally, they never walk their talk!!! They never move to the current Gibbertarian utopias, which these days are Somalia, Honduras, and Mali. Government is weak and rules and regulations all but nonexistent. Aaron would either fit right in or be dead in a month. Without the rule of government and law, you always end up with the rule of the…gun.
We believe you. You make a convincing idiot sociopath.
You are also an obvious troll who is derailing this thread.
And Boring, a key Loonytarian trait. I’m using my Libertarian free will and am now done here. My life is far too valuable to spend it being bored by routine troll.
@21: First Rule of Holes.
If you’re seriously not the standard-issue libertarian, you are invited to prove it by not being an asshole. Think of it as a mission; you might be able to convert hundreds if not thousands to libertarianism if you can avoid being an asshole for three consecutive posts.
Or you could actually provide us with some evidence that you, or more ambitiously a significant proportion of slef-described libertarians, don’t fit the stereotype. For exampl,e you could point us to sites where you, and perhaps other libertarians, point out that anthropogenic climate change is a real and urgent problem, that men, white people, straight people, cisgender people, upper-class people benefit from privilege and racism and sexism are real, continuing problems, that poor people are generally not to blame for their poverty…
My hunch is that you won’t, because you can’t, but I’m willing to be proved wrong.
Over to you.
On topic. Bitcoin seems to be a cute idea that has however, done what Loonytarian ideas always do. Fail spectacularly.
In two or three years, Bitcoins have varyed in value from $50 to $1200. Currently it is $580.
Seems to me, a currency that varies by 24X in a few years and bounces around isn’t all that useful. The US dollar and other western currencies are a lot more stable than that.
And they aren’t worth anything unless you can convert them into dollars, Euros, pounds or other real currencies.
ashleybell: The video itself was made by a detractor, David Futerelle at We Hunted the Mammoth. The content is all Stephan Molyneux though.
aarongrow, #16:
Aaron, as an erstwhile fundie (who still believes [my interpretation of] the Golden Rule) and libertarian (who still believes [my interpretation of] the non-aggression axiom), I encourage you to put the defensiveness on hold and listen for a bit to what other folks, like the people here, have to say.
If we give libertarianism all benefit of even the tiniest doubt, we still have to admit that there’s a problem. Since we’re giving it the benefit of the doubt, we’re assuming that Libertopia won’t evolve into an oligopoly into a reborn state. We’re also assuming that a voluntarist enforcement mechanism works to prevent vandalism, fraud, theft, assault, rape, murder, and all the other big obvious crimes. We’re also assuming that bigotry can’t survive in Libertopia, because the non-bigots always out-compete the bigots. I’ll even give you a Mulligan and assume that bigotry itself becomes extinct in Libertopia, because the obvious advantages of non-bigotry makes bigots self-marginalizing.
Note that these assumptions are false, because it’s easy to construct an enclave of bigotry on purely libertarian principles–i.e., where the target of hatred is not assaulted, robbed, lynched, or otherwise molested, but is unable to find a job, buy or rent a home, or procure services. “Nonviolent segregation” is perfectly consistent with libertarianism. But lets assume that’s not so. Lets suppose that these enclaves evaporate as well, because life in the rest of Libertopia is so obviously more inviting.
Let’s also assume that libertarians are right that revolutionary change would be bad, because revolution offers the least scrupulous a chance to seize power–like the Russian revolution, in which the Czar really deserved overthrowing, but the resulting Communist regime made things arguably worse. Or the invasion of Iraq, where Saddam certainly deserved to be toppled, but the end result is not clearly an improvement for Iraqis.
Even with all those assumptions, there’s still a problem that libertarians, today, aren’t addressing. To quote you again:
Consider Walter Block as an example. Personally, he’s a good-hearted Jewish atheist professor of economics, without any apparent hate in his soul for anyone. He doesn’t “hate women and non-whites.”
He does, however, argue that the wage gap is purely an artifact of the patriarchal institution of marriage, and seems to indicate that the institution is a natural consequence of women being the ones who experience pregnancy and nursing. He fails to take into account that empirical studies prove that the same achievement is valued differently by people who think a man did it than people who think a woman did it. The same resume is judged differently when you simply change the name at the top. Even if he’s right that, in the long run, people without this prejudice have a competitive advantage over the others, the fact remains that this is a significant obstacle to overcoming prejudice. And it’s far from obvious that he’s right. It’s possible that any competitive advantage is nullified by customers’ belief that an identical product is actually inferior, because it was designed by women. This is outside his expertise as an Austrian economist, because to him subjective valuation is a given. He doesn’t inquire into the origins or consequences of subjective valuation.
Not to belabor it, since I’m going on too long already, but he makes similar arguments about discrimination against minorities. In addition, he pisses off minorities by suggesting that the path to ending discrimination is to accept lower pay–since this in turn makes everyone want to hire them, which gradually drives up their pay, which gradually eliminates both the bigotry and the pay gap. He may even be absolutely right as far as his economic reasoning goes (and in fact I suspect he is), but that’s cold comfort to the several generations of African Americans who have to accept reduced pay as part of a potentially centuries-long path to equality. “Don’t worry! Your great, great, great grandkids will see a brighter tomorrow!” is a piss-poor rallying cry.
I think Block’s arguments are actually typical of the better class of libertarians–the ones who aren’t outright misogynists and racists. I’m picking on him because I think he represents something like the very best libertarianism has to offer.
But he, you, and I when I was one, suffer a fatal shortness of vision. Not hating women and minorities isn’t enough. Telling them that it’s OK to start with the status quo, and gradually creep toward equality over (potentially) generations and centuries, is easy for us to say. Starting at the status quo looks pretty damn good from where we sit, as white, heterosexual, middle class, cisgendered males. Our blindness to how not pretty damn good it looks to the others IS our sexism and racism.
For libertarianism to be a credible political philosophy, it needs to do better than that. It needs to give a damn what happens to women, minorities, people of color, and everyone else, now, not in the long run as society gradually converges to Libertopia. And it needs to put much more energy into positively establishing equality, instead of this “trickle down” equality.
Apologies to all for going on at such length. :-(
re Blondin@4:
Why am I not surprised? I hear too many Libertoads denying the “anthropogenic” part of AGW, due to it being Heliogenic, or the catchall phrase, “do nothing; if AGW is true, the free market will correct it”; OR, “it’s too expensive to do anything, now ;-(” ..~.. So, to hear a noxious libertoad is also a climate denialist is no surprise, and somewhat expected. Sorry, aarongrow, your buddies have splashed their paint all over you, too. They make me see all Libertoads as toads.
From the headline I thought we were talking about Peter, so I was inclined to agree, although for different reasons…
cartomancer @6 – that was spectacular, thank you. :)
@19 Raven
Harper is clearly* not a Bush clone. He’s not a clown or a puppet. He’s domineering, untrustworthy, robotic, and evil. If he’s a clone of anyone, it’s Cheney.
* Harper says “let me be clear” and “clearly” a lot. It’s a signal that the lies spilling from his lips are about to turn into really big whoppers. Some of us have turned it into a drinking game, especially during speeches and debates.
Some time a woman chose an “asshole” over him and he’s still butt hurt about it.
His point #3 is the key. To me it implies:
a. He doesn’t get laid, or didn’t get laid as much as he thought he should in some formative period.
b. He thinks it’s because he’s a nice guy.
c. Everyone that gets/got laid more than him is an asshole.
d. Women (cry, moan, gnash of teeth) are to blame because they like assholes.
Everything else is just window dressing fluff for his tantrum about why he wasn’t popular with the girls. I have no clue if that’s the case. It’s just my first impression but I guarantee we’ll never be sharing a bowl over a campfire together.
Hi digibud, looks like we both came to the same conclusion. I quit watching when I realized it was just a long explanation for why he didn’t get any.
Molyneux is really onto something here: The men who act like assholes are clearly less responsible for their behaviour than the women who tolerate them.
#26 raven: What are your criteria for success? It is probably a bad idea to invest in bitcoins, but there are many sites where you can buy and sell. I’ve used it myself on occasion.
Not just less responsible: it’s the women’s fault. They’re only acting like assholes because it gets them laid. They’re doing neither more nor less than what women make them do as a condition of entering the shrine.
@31wondering
I find with his muzzling of scientists and librarians (that was something else) and his total control over his party he is leaning dangerously (for us) into a kind of bizarre dictator. Agreed though, he is the best drinking game ever!
We do have the wackos here too. Especially out west. ;)
Holy fucking shit. Someone with audio skills should dub this in Elliot Rodger’s voice.
I’ve heard that same segment before about a month ago, btw. I wonder where that might have been. Think it was in the wake of the just mentioned misogyny massacre.
@ raven
¡Canadian!, FIFY:
“My life is far too valuable to spend it being bored by
routinepoutine troll.”Now I’m confused, I tried to find the website where I heard that Molyneux excerpt before; turns out he did an equally long (~2h) video specifically about Elliot Rodger.
Not watching it right now, but given the above, I really have a hard time that he is the person to go for an opinion on that problem.
Should have been “hard time believing”.
@aarongrow: The label is a lost cause, almost exclusively used these days by people who want exactly as much government as necessary to enforce their social, economic, and legal privileges by threat of state violence. Just identify as an an anarchist (or anarcho-collectivist) already, unless you actually fall into the former category of people, in which case you’re an awful person.
@raven #26: You’re thinking about Bitcoin all wrong. Bitcoins are intrinsically ephemeral, like all money, but without a central regulatory authority to standardize the value, they fluctuate in a market exactly as one should expect (unregulated markets are volatile). It’s an extremely bad idea to HOLD any money in Bitcoins, but that doesn’t mean the currency is useless. Instead, its primary effective use (beyond gambling, which is a practice that we should acknowledge as enjoyable to many people, and thus valuable in its own right) is as an intermediary currency to launder money or obfuscate the parties involved in an illegal or illicit (or otherwise secret) transaction. I suppose if you’re one of the few people to think that all of our laws are perfect, this might seem bad, but otherwise it’s a very valuable system for circumventing any number of bad laws.
Aye, there’s the rub, isn’t it? In order to do something concrete about the fact that non- white, male, straight, cis, people are starting the footrace half a mile behind the starting gate requires collective action of some kind. But Libertarianism is fundamentally opposed to collective actions. So for Libertarianism to be a credible political philosophy, all it has to do is stop being Libertarianism.
@43 And anarchists aren’t horrible people? When did anarchy become such a hot idea?
moarscienceplz, #44:
Well, it’s not opposed to people working together, so in that sense it’s perfectly compatible with “collective action.” It’s even compatible with using various kinds of non-physical “force” to get people working together, such as businesses refusing to serve people who aren’t participating. But it does oppose using the force of law to make people work together against their will, which is what people usually mean by “collective action.”
So it’s not inherently true that libertarians must abandon all their principles to become credible. But they do need to substantiate their claim that it’s possible to establish equality without the force of law. I.e., they need to offer a credible way of achieving equality by voluntary means. Or at the very least, they need to show by their own efforts that they themselves want to be part of the solution rather than the problem. For example, their arguments against government welfare would gain credibility if they demonstrated that voluntary charity can meet the need, or at least rolled up their sleeve and volunteered at the local soup kitchen.
@w00dview #8
I had a discussion with my libertarian (running for office politician) brother a few weeks ago. We started talking about AGW and I asked if he knew what the science says and how can he be against ecologic policies if he can see they are needed.
His whole argument was, that he’s read scientists for and against and doesn’t have the time to look into the evidence. He wants to be an active politician and at the same time will support policies where he is ignorant of the facts? So sad.
Quoting myself:
Arguably that has a lot to do with the initial spread of Christianity. Not just that they preached pie in the sky for the poor, downtrodden, and slaves, but that those same people could come together and be treated, briefly, as equals. So much so that Romans initially regarded Christianity as a slaves’ religion, as illustrated by Tacitus’ mistaken reference to Jesus as “Crestus”–a common slave name at the time.
Leftwingfox (#27): The video itself was made by a detractor, David Futerelle at We Hunted the Mammoth. The content is all Stephan Molyneux though.
I wondered why the “We Hunted the Mammoth” logo.
But, in his video about Elliot Rodgers, Molyneux begins with such seeming calmness and rationality. (I only watched for a few seconds.)
Really, if the content is all his, he might have proposed a more effective solution: Kill all the assholes before they have a chance to breed. (Definition of “asshole” is left up to the reader.) Presto: instant Utopia. /sarc
Avenger #46
Oh, there are libertarians who volunteer. I read a story about a retired guy in my area who dives into dumpsters behind food stores and finds perfectly good food which he then delivers to food banks and such. And more power to him. But I notice that the food bank that I donate to is still screaming that they can’t keep up with the demand.
I think you and I are basically in agreement. Libertarian ideas have been a major input to the U.S. government’s approach to social issues since 1981 (actually, even longer), and yet the situation for the disenfranchised has generally gotten worse, not better. I’d say the evidence we already have pretty strongly indicates that Libertarianism doesn’t work.
On anarchists–sorry, guys, but this one is poisoned, too. Back around the turn of the 20th century, anarchists were the dominant terrorist movement. There was a Punch cartoon that showed two anarchists. One said to the other, “What time does your bomb say?”
Anarchy is Libertarianism with even less realism.
Currencies are supposed to be stable. Bitcoin has gone from $50 to $1200, and then dropped by half in a few years.
I’ve done the same thing with US dollars. In fact, this happens often, several times a week.
If you look at Bitcoins as a short term store of value on the internet, that you buy and immediately spend, they might have some utility. OTOH, virtually all internet stores take US dollars. So where is the advantage?
I suppose if I was buying C4 plastic explosives, Predator drones, plutonium, or methamphetamine online, Bitcoins, if they are anonymous enough, might be useful. But I don’t need or want a Predator drone.
1. OK, I get it. You aren’t supposed to put Bitcoins in a bank for your retirement. They are to spend, not save.
2. Yeah, I see this. Governments are necessary but not always benign. In fact, sometimes they are downright dangerous and/or malevolent, depending on time and place.
There are times and things that the governments have no need or right to know about. I wouldn’t want President Gohmert, Palin, or Huckabee to even know that I’m alive much less where I am.
thelastholdout @2:
I completely agree with this.
I completely disagree with this racist bullshit.
****
aarongrow:
You really ought to do something about this problem you have. Libertarianism is an unworkable political philosophy. If put into effect, it would increase suffering and oppression for greatly-not for the privileged rich people. No, they would continue to reap all the benefits of the magickal, wondrous, free market. Everyone else, though? They’d suffer more. That’s not a good thing. If you’re one of those special libertarian snowflakes that doesn’t believe in the magic of the free market and if you support the continued regulation of companies, then you might be one of the reasonable ones. Holding my breath starting…now.
By the by, these “generalizations” so often turn out to be true.
Sigh.
If this were for some reason the only kind of atheism possible, I might have to grant the ‘belief in belief’ people their point, and accept theism as a necessary intellectual evil. I mean, fine, fine, believe in unicorns or leprechauns or whatever the hell you must, if it’s really that or join these geniuses.
… and yeah, that’s coming from someone who feels some horror at just what a stifling misery it can become, living within a community in which the given religious doctrine is a required badge of belonging…
Hell, come to think of it, if it were that or these jokers, we’d be quite done here, and I figure I’d be just as well off if you shot me now.
As to the Canada thing: I was mulling a while ago (actually at Futurelle’s place, oddly enough) just what it is about Canada and MRAs. Had this notion it had something to do with the odd self-identity the place gets as a side-effect of living in the downwind of so much US media. Our reactionaries especially look next door, see guns for sale at Wal-Mart, a somewhat less progressive tax system, figure we’re a Soviet satellite or something by contrast, this dreadful nanny state where women and girly men are running the show, real men just can’t be men, and there’s your trigger for ongoing nonsense about how this is just a terribly scary place to be born with a Y chromosome, the feminists are running the courts, and so on.
As to what it is about the apparently considerably overlap between the MRAs, the libertarians, and vocal nontheism, this is maybe, sadly, less of a mystery. Discarding gods isn’t exactly a huge intellectual leap, so you get all kinds do that much. What else they might be willing to discard or sign up for at the same time is clearly pretty variable. Throw out certain parts of the existing social contract, you’re on your way to libertarianism or anarchism. Be appropriately blind to enough of certain prevailing currents within the existing power structures, and the MRM’s rhetoric about how dreadfully unfair to men is the current arrangement is waiting right there for your adoption. There are grievances behind a lot of these things, some more legitimate and/or serious than others, so once you start looking for things not right about the world, you can seize on any permutation thereof. Takes rather more thought, maybe, to start spotting just how filtered has to be your evidence to imagine the picture the MRMs paint of relative power between the genders has much validity.
I wonder also how much the meme religion is the basis of morality makes a mess of things across this spectrum. Take someone who’s worked out the intellectual basis of religion is about deep as the buildings in a Potemkin village, maybe they’re naturally going to be suspicious of the whole construction they’ve been told is somehow associated with it, as well, start thinking, well, all of what I’m expected to adopt to live in this society is bullshit, too… The powers that be lied to me or were simply wrong about gods; why would I expect the rest of conventional views of statehood or community to be any better-founded? And it sets off a sort of Dunning-Kruger on steroids; figuring they’re smarter than the average bear for working out the relatively easy bits directly around religion, they imagine themselves brilliantly qualified to remake the whole of the edifice. As in: I’m right about gods, so hey, feminism, nation states, allow me to hold forth on these, too…
… all one more argument, I’d say, for cutting that bullshit off at the knees, making it clear there is no such dependency, among other things. Jehovah ain’t there, no, but it wasn’t him telling you thou shalt not steal, nor do you really need him around to work out communal management of shared resources is a good idea; ethical codes are human inventions, always were; toss the gods, you’ll still find them useful, and some parts of them at least much the same.
(/All probably said a thousand times before by now, too, I’d expect, but anyway.)
In my experience, the only “libertarians” who aren’t assholes are the “civil libertarians”like Ed Brayton who haven’t quite accepted that the Narcisso-Capitalists have won the struggle for ownership of the label of “Libertarian.”
aarongrow is like tofu recipe #78.
The first time I tried tofu I came to the conclusion that I don’t like it. Then somebody told me “nah, that’s not the way you prepare tofu, you need this recipe”. And I still didn’t like it. Another person told me I was using the wrong tofu. So I tried it again. Still didn’t like it. I think it’s simply that I don’t like tofu.
Same with libertarians. They show up here claiming that they are not like all the
horrible tofu recipesother libertarians, yet so far there hasn’t been one who lived up to that promise…It just occurred to me (and correct me if I’m wrong), isn’t that “assholes exist only because women have sex with them, therefore women are to blame” analogous to saying “hereditary diseases exist only because women have sex with people with those diseases”, and (to a lesser extent obviously, because sex does not only happen involving women) “sexually transmitted diseases exist only because women have sex with people with those diseases”?
How can one someone keep a straight face and place the blame on women with this form of argument?
Wow, I need to preview better.
My bolded sentence above should read:
If put into effect, it [libertarianism] would increase suffering and oppression of marginalized groups, but not rich people.
If there is ever a scale invented for assholitude it should be named after Molyneux.
Hmm. On the idea of libertarianism, it ocured to me that there is a “libertarian” market place already, its called Kickstarter (that, and the others like it). If an idea is, or sounds, good, you can get funded to make it, while if its stupid, or impractical, you don’t get jack for it, and you only get the money “if” you hit the target amount needed. But… the irony in it is how many projects depend on things like a) existing technology, from non-free market, or worse, open source, open hardware, projects, 3D printing, which has its own “open project” systems, and all sorts of other collectivist things. Its almost as though it can only work if you start out with a level playing field from the beginning, then built your “free market” on top of it. You can’t get to it from the other direction. A truly enlightened John Galt would have seen this obvious flaw, and Star Trekked his machine – the whole point of how Star Trek works as a society being that you can a) get pretty much unlimited power sources, cheap, and free, and b) you can then use those to run replication systems, kind of like really advanced 3D printers (I can’t wait to see what Kickstarter comes out of Tesla releasing them patents to the public. lol). The libertarian paradise in Atlas shrugged would have either ended the moment the real world ate him alive (and robbed him blind), or.. would have *begun* with him giving away his idea, to raise everyone else up, closer to a level playing field, so that merit actually counted for something.
Again – you just can’t get there from here, through the “market”. Unless, of course, you see the market as including the ideas about how to run markets, in which case… ironically “both” collectivism and libertarianism are winning, but ***as partners***, not rivals, and then only when the “enlightened” are willing to give away big shit, for free, so that even bigger shit can compete in the market place of ideas.
@ 58 Giliell – That’s hilarity. Great metaphor. Seriously though, have you tried a really firm tofu cooked solid with some soy sauce so it’s kinda like scrambled eggs? Why not just eat scrambled eggs, you ask? uh ….. dunno.
On second thought, nevermind my analogy @59, it really does not compare (diseases rarely being sought after, as Molyneux implies for assholishness), and the claim is sufficiently demolished by PZ pointing out the simplistic conceptualization of said assholishness.
The same label sort of reminded my of the mental illness-discussion. I cannot quite pinpoint it, but it seems to be yet another rationalization of why one should not critically reflect one’s own attitudes (because one does not see oneself as mentally ill, or an asshole)… sorry if incoherent, I need a nap.
@62 Kagehi: on the topic of Kickstarter (and the like) as an analogy for free markets as mentioned by Libertarians, it seems to actually illustrate why that concept of free markets doesn’t work. I was just listening to how scams can get funded by those things *cough*indiegogo*cough*. Two in particular were a watch-like device from Healbe claiming to be able to measure glucose levels and calories consumed and burned and some kind of perpetual motion machine (if I recall correctly).
This illustrates a problem with the “free market” which in this case is assuming all consumers are super informed. People aren’t perfect creatures with flawless intelligence and ethics. I think this came up in past threads where Libertarians suggested letting the free market sort out bad and/or bigoted businesses, somehow assuming that there won’t be any bigoted people patronizing those bigoted businesses. To me, it seems their concept of free market depends on what’s popular to be objectively good, and what’s good to be popular.
Libertarianism is akin to the old saying: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” The libertarian hammer is the free market. Market incentives combined with an uncompromising protection of personal property rights will, the libertarian believes, yield the optimum solutions to all problems like pollution, discrimination, resource allocation, poverty, etc., etc., etc. Neither theory nor practice nor history support these claims. Real life problems must be met with a kit of tools, a variety of rules, practices and objectives. Thus, while the free market and property rights may be appropriate solutions to a few problems, they surely will not suffice for most social and economic issues.
moarscienceplz #50:
I think so too.
Well, the rhetoric has certainly been popular, especially since Reagan popularized it. The implementation has been mighty self-contradictory.
For example, “deregulation” is the poster child “libertarian” idea, but “I don’t think it means what [generic] you think it means.” When government deregulates something, it invariably facilitates fraud and indemnifies the industry from liability. If they suddenly “deregulated” paint production, they would not only be allowing the sale of lead paint; they would also be allowing companies to lie about or conceal the lead content, publish false claims about the safety hazards of lead, and indemnify them against lawsuits for lead poisoning.
The libertarian version of deregulation would involve letting them sell lead paint, but forbidding them to lie about the lead content (because that’s fraud), forbidding them to lie about the health risks (also fraud), and forcing them to bear full liability for any harm they cause. It’s possible that that model has been followed by our government, but I don’t know personally of any examples.
NOTE: I’m not saying that this type of deregulation would be a good thing! I’m only saying that however libertarian deregulation may be, indemnification and facilitation of fraud are contrary to libertarian principles. The Koch brothers’ definition of libertarianism is indeed everything everyone here says it is.
What distresses me is that our government gives us the worst of both worlds. Underneath all the obfuscation in the fracking debate, it looks to me like the two choices are going to be an outright ban on fracking, OR carte blanche to poison aquifers with complete impunity. I would like to see frackers held completely responsible to either fix the aquifers they’ve harmed already, or to provide potable water to all affected homes in perpetuity. And if those were the stakes, it’s possible (accent on possible) that we might find an option C: a way to get the natural gas from shale beds without the environmental harm. Today, the environmental cost of their operations is fully borne by someone else, so they’re strongly incentivized to do the absolute worst thing. It’s a very likely outcome that this will continue, and that the government will be their accomplice in this atrocity.
Al Dente, #66:
Agreed. Although when I was one, my hammer was the nonaggression principle. Although I’ve deconverted from libertarianism, I’m now almost completely vegan and pacifist, so in many ways my commitment to nonaggression has only increased.
Viewed through that lens, Pharyngulites don’t disagree in general about non-aggression–what they disagree on is the definition of aggression itself. For example, most of us see the accumulation of excessive wealth as itself an act of aggression, and the redistribution of that wealth to benefit the poorest among us as not aggression, but rather an act of defense.
I confess to remaining somewhat torn. Not because I have any objection to the safety net, but because of every dollar I contribute to benefitting the poor, I’m contributing roughly another $0.35 to the ongoing slaughter and oppression abroad, and the growing police-state conditions at home. If a charity asked me for money, promising to spend 58% of my money helping the poor, and 20% of my money murdering people of color, needless to say I would decline to contribute. (I’m also cynical that spending on the social safety net is calculated to maximize benefit to the politicians, rather than to those in need.)
Indeed, as my relativity denialist, (former?) evolution denialist, social darwinist, anti-women-voting-ist fiend of a brother demonstrates. He’s also into some “magic of bees” meditation and quantum woo.
Ugh.
I get what a Libertarian is (sort of) though I have yet to read a great definition. They seem to be sort of delusional and very hypocritical.
But this guy is Canadian? Fuck. First Sye Ten Bruggenwhatever and now this dude. We may be a pretty laid back people (unless you fuck with our booze) in general…but when we produce an idiot we go full fucking hog.
AP
aarongrow, Libertarianism is built on ideas that few people would disagree with. I mean, ‘no initiation of physical force’? ‘Minimal government’? Who could object to those things? Sign me up, dude!
So it’s not that people who disagree with Libertarianism disagree with its ideas. Rather, the disagreement is with how Libertarian ideas are implemented. And as best I can tell, from interaction with various self-professed Libertarians, the #1 problem with Libertarianism can be summed up in six words: “All the freedom you can afford!” In practice, the Libertarian implementation of Libertarian ideas would mean that if you’re already wealthy and powerful, a Libertarian society will work nicely for you—but if you’re neither wealthy nor powerful, you will get fucked over six ways from Sunday, worlds without end, amen. Unless, of course, you’re fortunate enough to have a mentor/sponsor who’s willing to pay for your freedom as well as their own freedom. Which can be a decidedly unLibertarian relationship, unless you’re fortunate enough to have a mentor/sponsor who neither recognizes the power he has over you as a result of that relationship nor exploits that power badly…
The #2 problem I see with Libertarianism, after all-the-freedom-you-can-afford, is the apparent Libertarianism assumption that government is always always always wrong, and business is always always always right. This assumption is rarely stated explicitly, but it’s an implicit, necessary presupposition behind a lot of the Libertarian thinking I’ve encountered, for the standard meaning of “necessary presupposition” as “a concept which must be valid in order for the conclusion to be valid”. Sadly, this presupposition does not accord with Reality; businesses and and do do things wrong, and to the extent that a business’ wrongdoing is backed by wealth and/or other forms of power, its wrongdoing can and does have far greater deleterious effects, on a far greater number of victims, than would analogous wrongdoing perpetrated by people (or other entities) who are not wealthy.
And the #3 problem I see with Libertarianism is the presumption (this one is often explicit) that no physical force = no coercion. If John Doe’s employer is the only thing between Doe and homelessness, just how ‘free’ is Doe to refuse when Doe’s employer requests that Doe do something that has no bearing on the tasks Doe does for that employer? Now, you may say that no reasonable employer actually would do that, but if that’s your argument, well, there’s just a whole fucking lot of employers out there who are not ‘reasonable’ in this sense.
So… yeah. Libertarianism has some laudable concepts lurking ‘under the hood’, sure. But the way Libertarianism implements those concepts is largely free from the ravages of contact with Reality.
And that’s why Libertartianism gets no respect around here, aarongrow.
Most popular philosophy show?
So….both people that follow along like it?
sez pz: “Canadians are always so nice and rational when I meet them, but apparently the national psyche harbors a few bizarre twists here and there.”
D*** M*** has already been referenced, so I will merely adduce the name of Canuckian YEC nutbar Robert Byers.
““Canadians are always so nice and rational”
try meeting a few who’ve been homeschooled in the backwoods of Alberta or BC
John Horstman#43
No, no, no, the last thing we need is those assholes latching onto yet another perfectly good word; they’ve already done quite enough damage to ‘anarchist’ as it stands.
Kevin Kehres#45
I don’t have time to write out a lengthy explanation at the moment, but A Masked Avenger actually has a pretty good capsule description of the ethical aspects, although I disagree about the practical necessity of something that should reasonably be described as ‘government’ in some form.
Anarchism (anarcho-collectivism and variants, anyway; the anarcho-capitalists are deluding themselves, and also usually horrible people) is basically about everyone having a say. So, for instance, when people live in close quarters (which is necessary for there to be such a thing as technological civilisation, a thing I like on its own merits but also a practical necessity given the current human population base), some degree of freedom of action must be forgone in the interests of the neighbors. Ideally, everyone who lives there would have a say in what freedoms were foregone, and everyone’s freedoms would be equally impacted. Similarly in the workplace; who decides what policy is, what the business does, etc? I think that the people who actually operate things should get a say in what happens; if they actually have an equal say with everybody, this means that certain positions will cease to exist, (much of what’s generically called ‘management’ for example doesn’t exist in worker cooperatives, although there are people whose job is administration (note, this is not theoreticall, such cooperatives exist in the real world)), but that the actual workplace experience will be considerably better. (This doesn’t obviate the need for various anti-discrimination and anti-harrassment policies for obvious reasons).
Despite this, there needs to be some agency(ies) tasked with maintaining infrastructure (which includes a social safety net, as well as some type of structure of laws) and collect revenues to operate same, which can really only be adequately described as government.
a_ray
Please. That ‘propagana of the deed’ bullshit isn’t really a big part of the public conciousness anymore. IME, most people associate the word either with liberturds (see my complaint to John Horstman above)
A Masked Avenger#68
The solution, though, is to get the government to stop shooting people, not to prevent it doing anything.
what is it about libertarians and libertarian thought makes me think it a further iteration of Social Darwinism in which the individual has mostly replaced any particular ethnic group and “the market” has replaced natural selection at least in the rhetoric used.
It is at least as relevant
uncle frogy
MISANDRY! We all know this guy wants to completely emasculate all of those deemed “asshole” by his magic “asshole DNA detector” (I just don’t see how castration wouldn’t be enough for him).
Sorry for not responding. I just got home and have just started reading the responses. I will get back as soon as I have a chance to continue reading.
What I can’t figure out is how these guys complain that women won’t go out with them by claiming that women only prefer guys who are assholes and that “nice guys” like them don’t stand a chance — and then prove themselves to be assholes. You’d think if this was actually true, they’d be the most popular guys with women ever.
I think their definition of “guys who are assholes” is actually “any men who women actually like”.
It was the same with the guy that recently went on a shooting rampage because girls wouldn’t go out with him. His youtube video was full of this stuff.
cubist @ #71
I suppose I’m one of those few people who disagrees with the “minimal government” trope of Libertarianism and white conservatism. Government should be as big as it needs to be to do the jobs we need it to do.
To me “minimal government” is pure dog whistle politics. This notion that our government is too big grows directly out of the segregationist South. When George Wallace stood in front of the UofA doors to stop the enforcement of desegregation what he attacked was Washington overreach. He wasn’t a racist, he was a defender of freedom against big government. What minimal government means is that government shouldn’t help minorities, women, young people needing educations, the working middle class, etc. It should only do what rich white guys want it to do for them.
Incidentally when a certain famous skeptic and Libertarian asserted in one of his recent books that everyone agrees that government should be small, I quit reading. I suspect he has no reliable evidence for such an assertion. He certainly offered none at that point.
sez robro: “I suppose I’m one of those few people who disagrees with the ‘minimal government’ trope of Libertarianism and white conservatism. Government should be as big as it needs to be to do the jobs we need it to do.”
Do you think the government should do more jobs than is necessary? If not, you agree that minimal government is a good idea; you just have a different idea about which jobs are “necessary” than Libertarians typically do. And this is where the fussy details of implementation come in.
Consider the FDA. I’m not sure if all Libertarians would agree, but there are definitely some Libertarians who argue that the FDA’s job of ensuring the safety of food isn’t a job that government needs to do, on the grounds that private-sector organizations are perfectly capable of doing that sort of thing already; these Libertarians might go so far as to cite the private-sector organization Underwriters’ Laboratories as evidence that the private sector is up to this task, and they’d probably cite the known instances of FDA failures as evidence that the government shouldn’t be doing this thing in the first place. Of course, these Libertarians would never recognize that the FDA exists for the plain & simple reason that the private sector wasn’t ensuring food safety, nor can they provide any reason to think that the contemporary private sector would do any better at that job now, than the pre-FDA private sector did back then. Thus, these Libertarians’ position is founded on the unspoken Libertarian presupposition of government BAD, business GOOD!
(Sarcastically) Yea because women really like burkas and genital mutilation. They love being hit and brutalized and told to be quiet. All of that arranged marriage stuff all women’s ideas. (What a load of BS.)
Women for the majority of our history didn’t get to choose, so that would be why the asshole aka biggest, strongest, meanest got to reproduce. And if this idiot knew anything about dog breeding he would realize it takes several generation to breed disposition. So what works better reason and logic or that we are dogs and it has to be bred out of us?
Here is his argument in a hand basket.
Step 1: Evolution will make us better.
Step 2: Men who get to breed are assholes.
Step 3: Blame the victim.
Step 4-?: Refer to step 2.
Correction Step four should be refer to step 3.
Shorter Molyneux: I hate, hate HATE women because they won’t have sex/enough sex/the right kind of sex with me. I also hate the men who DO have sex with these women so they are Assholes, and women couldn’t possibly prefer them to a Magnificent Gentleman* like me, so genetics/hypergamy/etc. And also, I’m mad at my mom, because other mothers totally school their sons in the fine art of Getting Some, and practically bitchslap the ho’s who don’t put out for their baby boys, but my mom never did that. In fact, she said stuff like, “I love you,son, but I don’t like you very much right now”, or “get a life”, or even “stop being a mysogynist crybaby”. Or maybe she never said anything like that, and sang me lullabies as she made me apple pie, but damnit, I like CHERRY pie, not apple. What kind of mom doesn’t know her son’s favorite pie…
*taken directly from Elliot Rodgers, Molyneux’s MRA soul brother.
Shorter Molyneux: I hate, hate HATE women because they won’t have sex/enough sex/the right kind of sex with me. I also hate the men who DO have sex with these women so they are Assholes, and women couldn’t possibly prefer them to a Magnificent Gentleman* like me, so genetics/hypergamy/etc. And also, I’m mad at my mom, because other mothers totally school their sons in the fine art of Getting Some, and practically bitchslap the ho’s who don’t put out for their baby boys, but my mom never did that. In fact, she said stuff like, “I love you,son, but I don’t like you very much right now”, or “get a life”, or even “stop being a mysogynist crybaby”. Or maybe she never said anything like that, and sang me lullabies as she made me apple pie, but damnit, I like CHERRY pie, not apple. What kind of mom doesn’t know her son’s favorite pie…
*taken directly from Elliot Rodger, Molyneux’s MRA soul brother.
@81
cubist
That makes the term “minimal government” seem particularly vacuous. Any government at all can now be declared to be a minimal government by those who see all of it as necessary.
I thought it was like this: the minimum of government would be the governance of each individual conscience. Maybe I’m oversimplifying because I have an agenda… or mistaken… or misinterpreting. But that’s what it appears to me to mean.
Why do I suddenly have this image of the late Andre the Giant dressed in a tweed suit, wearing wire-rimmed glasses, reading a volume of Hume while puffing on a briar pipe?
=8)-DX @ 47
Which means he’ll side with the position that allows him to be the biggest capitalist pig he can.
I wonder what that will be…
Cubist @ 81
Face it loonytarians, the best things in life–equality, justice, education, sanitation–are rammed down the masses’ throats by the big bad government, because most people (especially you) are too greedy, selfish, and/or stupid to choose to do the right thing by your own volition.
Awwwww… Is that all too “harsh” and ” intrusive” to you? Well, cry me a fucking river. The need for a clean, stable civilization without poverty, racism, sexism, or superstition will forever take priority over ANY of your pwecious “freedoms.”
Because that would be fucking awesome. I bet that’s what he’s doing right now in Platonic heaven. When somebody says something stupid, he throws a boulder at them. Then he gives Socrates a high-five, but accidentally rips his arm off.
I know this wasn’t entirely serious, but I’ll put it a little differently.
We all have a responsibility to make the big bad government what it is, because it just doesn’t fucking matter that we each individually do the right things of our own volition, as long as we at least aim for the best society we can get in practice. Most people recognize that we do have such responsibilities to each other, and the effects are what matter, not whether I (or anyone else) personally chose to do the right thing. That’s why most people aren’t libertarians or some flavor of right-wing anarchist: they know you need a government because you’re morally obliged to live up to your responsibilities to others, no matter who (or what or how many) made that decision or which other people those “others” happen to be. They know that there are such things as social/political responsibilities, even though they disagree on some of the specifics, and that they should not be optional or “voluntary.” It’s a good thing, and it happened, so just be fucking happy about that and get on with your fucking life — so says the ordinary person, who barely even gives that kind of shit a second thought. There are of course control freaks and authoritarians and assorted dogmatists who won’t like it no matter what, but they have a hard time getting along with each other to form some kind of coalition of pretentious assholes, much less constituting a significant majority.
This isn’t to say that most people aren’t often greedy, selfish, stupid, etc.; but that at the same time, most are also at least somewhat good and reasonable, at least enough to not be totally divorced from the reality of our situation. It’s simply confused and false to make the assumption (with the libertarian) that people are rational actors who pursue their self-interests at all costs, that this is how “markets” and “corporations” and so on must always behave, that everything valuable is money or can be monetized, etc. (Thus, with governments, we somehow need to perform a Sisyphean task of negating all of that or to “rise above” what we supposedly are “naturally,” by force no less, because “most people” supposedly don’t actually want it.) It’s painting the wrong picture of human beings: if any part of it really looks like that, that doesn’t mean it’s the whole thing. I have a hard enough time even recognizing that one little piece that they’re always blathering about incoherently (and assuming it’s the best thing ever, instead of the worst), but I’m totally lost if I’m supposed to imagine that there isn’t anything else to it.
Libertarianism is highly axiomatic. For instance, libertarians are for “individual rights” and against “force” and “fraud”, just as they define it. Their use of these words, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of “force and fraud”? One of the little tricks Libertarians use is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as “terms of art” in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you’re against “force and fraud”, then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you’re in favor of “force and fraud” isn’t that highly immoral? So you’re either one of them, or some sort of degenerate who doesn’t think “force and fraud must be banished from human relationships”.
Libertarians make a big deal about “initiation of force” as in no person should initiate the use of force against another person. However when libertarians hink using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force. It’s a bit like “war of aggression” versus “war of defense”. No country in history has ever claimed to be initiating a “war of aggression”, they’re always retaliating in a “war of defense”. The idea that libertarians don’t believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda. They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct. “Initiation of force” is a libertarian term meaning essentially “do something improper according to libertarian ideology”. It isn’t even connected to the actions we normally think of as force. So when libertarians ask whether one agrees or disagrees with “initiation of force” what they’re really asking is it is wrong for a person to do something which contravenes libertarian ideology.
Libertarians argue that “all problems will be solved if we just let
Jesusthe free market into ourheartspolitics.” What they do is focus on incidents where the political process is at its worst, and peddle their snake-oil, contrasting the gritty reality with their pristine fantasy. Of course the fantasy looks better. The reason they get away with this is mainly because there is no Libertopia, so there aren’t any examples to show where Libertopia is non-functional.I’ll keep this brief
Giliell @17 I remember a cartoon posted by PZ a few years ago that showed at least 16 different types of libertarian. I considered myself a combination of the left-leaner shouting “I’m here!” and the pot smoker. I don’t know a lot of libertarians, but the only Libertarian I’ve met was a middle class African American, and the other libertarian was a feminist college professor/record store owner. @58 I’m not saying I’m not horrible. I’m just not an MRA climate change denier.
Raven @22 I may be a troll, but, I was baited by PZ. I am not sure how to respond to the idea that Somalia is some kind of free market paradise while being ravaged by Islamic militias. Maybe you could enlighten me. @26 how is bitcoin anything but an unbacked currency no different than any other currency? The only difference is the supposed lack of government control. All currency, including gold backed, is subjective to what people hold as valuable. I don’t oppose or support it.
Nick @25 I don’t follow any Libertarian blogs, nor really care to, but, I do remember a blog I think was named Bleeding Heart Libertarian that took a stand against sexism, at least, and I’ve heard Nick Gillespie of Reason TV oppose racism in particular. I, personally, believe the concensus on AGW, and I perfectly understand that straight white males are very privileged, but, I thought cisgender was a SWM, so, since I’m appearantly wrong about that, I guess that does put me one more step towards evil. I will ask you how you stand on the idea of the individual? Am I a free individual, seemingly able to make decisions for myself, or am I part of a hive, owing everything to the hive?
Masked Avenger @28 I don’t buy into utopian ideals, nor do I spend a lot of time considering them. Utopias are supposed to be great, no matter the basis, as I understand it, but, reality tells me they aren’t too likely. I suppose I don’t know the depth of Libertarian arguments for or against racism and sexism, but, I was raised by a feminist Objectivist, so I might be biased by what I’ve experienced. I’m not sure whether revolutionary change is good or bad. Our recent examples of communism doesn’t look to good, and the right wing versions seemed at least as bloodthirsty as the left. I can’t really support building upon the status quo, either, but it seems less bloody. Wishy washy, I know. I don’t disagree entirely with your statements @67 and @68. I completely agree your statement about responsibility for the damage you do to the environment. You made the mess, clean it up. You are also right about our probably different definition of aggression. It’s hard to not be defensive when you feel lumped inwith the worst of the worst. Kind of like how there are those who view atheists as all hateful and insensitive.
twas brillig @29 I can’t answer for anyone but myself, but I accept AGW as a real thing.
John Horstrum @43 I’m not an anarchist, so I can’t really call myself one. After that Chomsky movie came out I called myself an anarcho-libertarian, but I lost my idealism and dropped the anarcho.
Tony @55 Breath, damn you! Breath! I’m not your special snowflake. I happen to believe that competition lowers prices for the poor as well as the rich. I am not convinced that in reality a state controlled economy makes for better off poor people.
cubist @71 #1 I think we are getting fucked over six ways from Sunday, now. I’m not sure about your mentor/sponsor thing. It sounds like involuntary servitude. I have never heard anyone propose that, though. #2 I agree that people are capable of being bad. We do need some form of protection. #3 Yes, economic ties can be a problem. Best I can say is that we need as much diversity and opportunity as we can get so as to avoid that situation. I feel that is best acheived through competition, though it may not be the only way.
Kevin @24 Just curious if this third post makes me more or less of an asshole? Do you feel yours made you more or less of an asshole?
Akira MacKenzie @87 Government has been doing a great job of eliminating all those problems, huh? Who needs freedom, slave?
A Masked Avenger @28: Your comment was very informative; no need to apologize for length when length is necessary. Not everything packs neatly into 140 characters.
Certainly there are many libertarians who don’t fit the ‘selfish privileged dude’ stereotype, and I have personally known many libertarians whose distrust of government expresses itself in socially beneficial ways – like challenging corrupt local governments, or highlighting police brutality. The problem is that, as a movement and a philosophy, it is blinkered for a couple of reasons:
1) The overwhelming straight white dude demographic distorts “logical” arguments, as you note. You probably remember the dustup around David Boaz’ article Up from Slavery, where he takes a number of prominent libertarians apart for their myopic view that bygone eras were ‘more free’ – conveniently forgetting that those days were not so free for, say, African-Americans, or white women. Jacob Hornberg responded to that article with a lot of handwaving, and Bryan Caplan doubled down twice with arguments that women were, too, free because they could just stomp their little feet and get their husbands to obey them.
2) The existence of discrimination and bigotry contradicts the near-religious faith in The Market. Discrimination can’t exist in a free-market economy, under libertarian thinking: if you refuse to hire the most talented people because of their skin color or gender, some competitor will snap them up at reduced price and beat you out competitively. So libertarians are stuck either denying that discrimination actually exists, a la Cathy Young, or characterizing it as a rational choice, where women really are worse at math or all drop out to have babies anyway, so there is no penalty for an employer choosing to hire only male engineers.
thelastholdout @2: You realize that is a false dichotomy? Parents are not friends or roommates in a co-op living situation based on consensus decisions. Raising children in an environment of reason is not incompatible with “because I said so”. Anyone who has ever been involved in childrearing would laugh themselves sick at the idea that “reason” is going to resolve the problem of, say, an overtired toddler throwing a tantrum in the grocery store.
For that matter, it’s rather dangerous to assume that someone who claims to raise their children with “reason” cannot possibly use physical or emotional abuse as a tool of control.
aarongrow @ 91
In comparison to poverty and pollution the capitalists swine you and your fellow libertarians worship, yeah government has done of far superior job.
The only “slave” here is you to the corporate tyrants who have you thinking that if you grind your life away fir the billionaire’s profit in exchange for a pittance, you ‘ll get the Hampton’s summer home, the Leer Jet, and $10,000 per blowjob escorts.
So once again, fuck freedom… And fuck you while we’re at it.
[reads aarongrow@90]
[finds no response to my points about “all the freedom you can afford”, nor “government BAD, business GOOD”, nor “no physical force = no coercion”]
[decides that since aarongrow@90 elected not to address the meat of my comment, Bayesian prior for “any serious attempt at interaction w/ aarongrow will be futile” is pretty high]
[nods, backs quietly away, and goes about his business]
aarongrow:
I was breathing quite well when I made that comment. Not sure what the point of this was, unless you thought I was angry or something. Not sure how you figure out what emotion a commenter is experiencing based on their comments (assuming that’s what you’ve done)
I don’t care that you “happen to believe” that. I care if it’s true. Is it?
Moreover, without government to step in and tell businesses to pay employees a minimum wage, or mandating non discrimination policies, employees get screwed over. Those who believe the magical free market will somehow prevent people from being discriminated against by businesses are dreaming. Those people without the resources to relocate will be stuck at jobs where their bosses will fuck them over bc there’s no one telling them they can’t. Those people at the top–the rich people–won’t have to worry about that. You liberturds all seem to think people will miraculously start being generous, fair, and compassionate if companies are deregulated. Where’s the evidence of this?
Do breathe if and when you respond. And come back with facts and evidence, rather than opinion.
cubist @94:
Wise choice. I should have chosen to do the same.
I saw a lot of “I think” and “I disagree” and “I agree” in aarongrow’s responses to the various takedowns of his position. I saw nothing in the way of evidence for why he thinks reality matches his positions better than, for example, Masked Avenger’s.
Akira MacKenzie @95 Not many of those have really got much better since government involved itself. You may think any government involvement makes it better. I often see it reinforcing injustice. If you are living in America, too fucking bad if you don’t like freedom, you get some semblance of it, anyway.
cubist @96 Sorry, I didn’t spell it out for you. I don’t know about how many believe in “all you can afford”, but I believe you can’t buy people, so, even though you can find people rich enough to buy another human held captive by another, I find slavery to be immoral. I don’t know exactly where the line needs to be drawn, but, self determination with respect for others rights for the same would be a good start. Governments have done a less than stellar job of respecting those rights, to date. While government is not unnecessary, it can try to make itself more necessary than it needs to be. Again, I don’t know what your talking about with the mentor/sponsor thing. Businesses are made of people, and people do bad and good things. Business leaves ugly messes behind, government defends us from violence. No one who uses a brain says government is always bad, even Ayn Rand had a role for government. No one who has ever used Vioxx thinks government is always good, or business, either. I think I answered #3 well enough the first time. I’m sorry you find it inadequate. So, I don’t know why you feel so smug about my not answering your criticisms.
Tony @97 I’m sorry. I should have known humor isn’t always obvious to those without a sense of some. It was a futile attempt at mockery of your statement about holding your breath until I disavowed free markets. While not perfect, free markets are generally superior to controlled markets. I think history lends that idea credence. The controlled markets of the authoritarian societies collapsed in those that ignored market reforms when I was a young adult. Those that moved to lessen state control rode the crisis out. It took one of those a massive effort to suppress the desire for full blown freedom that was the inevitable result of tasting a hint of economic freedom. It may not be the greatest argument for free markets, but, it worked for me.
SallyStrange @99 It might be because a lot of what we are talking about is based on opinion, I disagreed with his interpretation of the facts or his opinions, or, I agreed with his interpretation of the facts or his opinions. Maybe, you could be more specific with your criticism.
Or am I expected to answer for every variety of libertarian, while I’m not expected to defend as infallibile every atheist or skeptic that offers an opinion? I will attempt to defend my own beliefs, not someone else’s, nor your straw men.
aarongrow:
First off, superior in what regard? Secondly, where is your evidence?
Tony!
I suspect it’s the way the free market lets certain privileged individuals get filthy rich at the expense of the rest. Superior for the select few.
Superior in the regard that they provide more goods and services of higher quality to more people than state controlled markets, as evidenced by the events leading to the collapse of many, if not most, state controlled economies during the late 80’s and early 90’s, and how those markets recovered by providing much more opportunity for individuals to make their own economic decisions. Again, I apologize for making my original response to difficult for you to understand, or for referencing events from before your birth, whichever the case may be.
No, Lofty, that’s the straw man.
Can you define a free market for us?
Hint: An unregulated market is not a free market, according to this guy you may have heard of.
aarongrow:
Well, you accomplished the first half of this:
Now what about the second half?
Where is your evidence to support your assertions?
aarongrow:
Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
After all, “I suspect this is aarongrow’s position” is not the same thing as saying “this is aarongrow’s position”.
You appear to think that the free market will benefit everyone, rather than just rich people. Do you have evidence to back this up, or will you continue throwing out unsupported assertion after assertion?
I’m also curious to know how the free market is going to protect People of Color, LGBTQI people, and women from discrimination in the workplace, or even ensure fair hiring practices. Currently, anti-discrimination laws exist to offer protection for those groups from corporations that would screw them over. Without government intervention, who’s going to protect them? After all, corporations are on record fucking them over when they can.
Also, without environmental regulations, what’s to stop corporations from increasing pollution? Are they just going to miraculously realize how bad it would be to pollute the environment and simply stop?
And what about wages? Without a minimum wage, are corporations going to act in the best interests of employees and pay them fair wages? Who’s going to ensure this?
Citation mother fucking needed. Liberturds are fact free in their claims. They can’t show economic freedom equals anything other than a kleptocracy. Why did you make a claim without evidence to back it up by citing the evidence. That is by liberturdism is nothing but religious like thinking.
Tony! The Queer Shoop @ 108
Oh, that one’s easy.
After the Culling, there will only be happy, healthy, productive workers left, and so companies will compete for their labour by offering better wages, more job security and perks.
I have to say, this was the funniest thing I’ve read today:
Whereas, of course, the free market has done a fantastic job. Just ignore the people without health insurance, the people who can’t afford food, the people who don’t even have a reliable roof over their head, and so forth and so on. And that’s just domestically! It’s so great aarongrow is against slavery, he might want to look into foreign labor practices. Perhaps he has, and just isn’t willing to draw the line quite there.
Of course, we also have to ignore how the free market and the government aren’t exactly distinct entities isolated from each other. Has aarongrow heard of lobbying?
But we have iPhones! Yay free market!
aarongrow @104, what do you mean by terms like “controlled market” or “state-controlled market”? I am assuming that by “free market” you don’t really want a market free of any government supervision – because that would mean no courts to enforce contracts, for example. So when you are talking about ‘controlled’ markets, are you referring to socialist or Communist states? Or by that do you mean any state interference in the market whatsoever?
It isn’t clear to me why it’s OK to have the state use its coercive power to insure that, say, I actually pay you for goods you have delivered, rather than forcing you to eat the consequences of your poor planning (if you didn’t manage to suss out I was a crook ahead of time) or imposing post hoc consequences on me (yes, I ripped you off this time, but nobody will ever do business with me again, supposedly).
I too would be interested in hearing aarongrow’s definitions for those terms. They sound an awful lot like terms one would use to describe a command economy, which would be a bizarre thing to be railing against considering how few of those are left. Or is any mixed economy now considered state-controlled, as long as the state has some, even if rather limited, control over the economy?
aarongrow
So far you’ve managed to be an almost perfect clone of the last half-dozen libertarians through here. A little less running off at the mouth and a little more actual evidence will help a lot if you want more that just mockery. I mean, you won’t provide any, but your attempts to should be a lot more amusing than the weaksauce crap you’ve brought so far.
That would be lovely. There always seems to be a lot more vague talk of how things will be, or how bad things are now. I do not expect much to be forthcoming, at least not anything very though provoking. The last libertarian I remember seeing here had a lot of similar statements to aarongrow, but ended up demonstrating their utter ignorance by throwing out the ROK as a great example of how wonderful free economies are. I am getting used to libertarians showing their ignorance of history and world economies more often than saying something interesting.
The hyperbole also makes it very difficult to take such people seriously and is all too common when talking to libertarians. An example being “state controlled economies” from above (unless it is actually referring to command economies, but I rather doubt that as it would be pretty irrelevant), which is ridiculous, painting largely market economies as though they are actually directly controlled by the state. This tendency to cast the discussion in terms of libertarian freedom, or jackboot heeled oppression is tiresome (the libertarian I mention above was obsessed with using the DPRK as an example, as though someone in the comments was suggesting that as an ideal), as those are the only possible options. Recently I found a video on YouTube dicussion by some libertarian news org about why our (Canada) banking sector faired so much better than the US system and I had to shut it off when I realized they were not going to stop calling us “hard socialist”.
OK, here’s a puzzle for Libertarians to solve. A real world problem. One that we actually have solved, and one that “more government regulation countries” solved much faster than “more free market countries”: Acid rain.
I hope we can all agree that the 1980’s and 90’s acid rain due to pollution was a bad thing.
Both in Europe and the USA meassures were taken against it by the governments. The USA used cap and trade, the majority of Europe conventional regulation. Europe got overall better and faster results.
So, how’s a free market going to solve the problem?
Or the problem of lead in fuel?
Giliell@116,
Those are both big problems, but even bigger was that of CFCs and other ozone-layer damaging chemicals: without the Montreal protocol, destruction of the ozone layer would have accelerated, with catastrophic consequences. The usual libertarian response is to deny the science, because if the free market can’t solve it, it just can’t be a real problem. Oreskes and Conway, Merchants of Doubt documents the campaigns of lies by corporations and their conservative and libertarian cheerleaders over acid rain and CFCs, among other issues.
Hmm. Doesn’t asking a libertarian to provide evidence come under the prohibition against initiating the use of force?
What utter crap. I see you’re still at least half a libertarian at heart. You can’t “fix” a poisoned aquifer, and corporations routinely go bankrupt (while protecting the fortunes of those at the top) in order to evade their responsibilities. Moreover fracking, by increasing the supply of fossil fuels, raises the demand and hence the emissions of greenhouse gases (supporters of fracking claim that the fracked gas displaces even more damaging coal, but in fact, American coal exports have increased to compensate for slightly reduced home consumption). Are you going to suggest that the producers of greenhouse gases be required to “fix” the climate and the oceans once the damage has been done?
I could. I support the use of physical force to rescue a child being neglected by their parents, or to stop an individual or corporation producing dangerous pathogens in inadequately controlled conditions – even if their intentions are benign. Of course, you can always redefine “physical force” to include lots of things that aren’t physical force, but why would you, if you are honest and value clarity? I support optimal (democratic) government – or as near as we can get to it; there is no rational reason to always presume that government should not have a role, as “minimal government” implies.
Nick
I guess there are dozens of those examples, lead being another one, and yeah, you’re right: They have no solution
This is one of the major issues I have with libertarianism – there’s no room under “non-initiation of force” for any proactive or preventative measures. You can’t stop someone selling poisonous food until someone gets sick, you can’t stop someone dumping dioxins into the water supply until someone develops cancer, you can’t stop someone spewing CFCs and shredding the ozone layer until after the damage has been done.
In other words, it’s impossible to prevent people or organizations from killing. Instead, you’re only permitted to punish them after the fact.
aarongrow@92
Of course libertarians say they are against racism and sexism, but they also routinely support others’ rights to act in racist and sexist ways, for example by discriminating on the grounds of race or gender in providing services or employment. Since effects count far more than expressed intent, they are in fact supporting racism and sexism.
Have a great big cookie. Now, what do you propose doing about it? How are your mythical “free markets”* going to solve the problem?
No, just ignorant, and that’s curable if you decide to cure it.
What a typically fuckwitted false dichotomy. Human freedom is, always and everywhere it exists, a product of human sociality (what you stupidly deride as “the hive”). You have depended, from the day of your birth, on the ingenuity and efforts of billions of people across thousands of centuries. Even if you divest yourself of everything made by others and go and live alone in the wilderness, that will not change, because members of Homo sapiens who are not acculturated in childhood are severely disabled cognitively. If you are selfish enough to think you owe nothing back, I can only feel contempt for you. The degree to which people should be forced to take account of the interests and desires of others (by obeying laws, respecting contracts, paying taxes, refraining from prejudice-based discrimination…) is something that should be decided democratically; it has no simple, final answers such as are suggested by libertarian duckspeak.
#100
Another typically fuckwitted dichotomy. no-one here is arguing for the kind of total top-down economic planning supposedly (although never in practice) found in the former USSR or Mao-era China. But it is worth pointing out some of those awkward facts simplistic libertarian dichotomies allow you to ignore:
1) The longest periods of sustained, rapid economic growth, and improvement in living conditions for large numbers of people, have occurred in times and places where government took a large part in directing economic activity. In the advanced liberal capitalist societies, this occurred roughly from 1945-1973. Taxation rates were high, many industries were partly or wholly in public ownership, currency transactions were strictly controlled, welfare systems were put in place, education free at the point of delivery was massively expanded. The small Asian states that industrialised during that period and after (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Thailand) also practiced extensive govenrment “interference”, and industrialised (as is true every country that has done so) behind tariff barriers (in Hong Kong’s case, these were the British tariff barriers that gave Hong Kong privileged access to British markets). Over the last 30 years, China has averaged nearly 10% p.a. economic growth, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty – an unprecedented event in human history. While it is certainly the case that China has reduced the extent of state control, it is still a heavily state-controlled economy: state-run companies account for around half of GDP, including key sectors such as energy, transport and telecommunications, and investment is heavily directed by the state-controlled banking system. Of course, China has huge problems, but its achievements show up the simplistic libertarian nostrums for the hogwash they are.
2) It is, in fact, remarkable that the USSR managed to compete for as long as it did with the American-led alliance. At the end of WWII, the USSR had lost 20 million dead, seen its most productive provinces overrun by war, and its non-war-related production had been cut back to a minimum. The USA, on the other hand, had suffered around 400,000 deaths, its territory was undamaged, and its economy had boomed in all sectors, sufficient to allow it (in perhaps the greatest example of enlightened self-interest ever) to support the recovery of western Europe and Japan in the (state-directed) Marshall Plan. Nevertheless, the USSR continued the Cold War for nearly half a century, and at some points looked capable of overtaking capitalism economically – although this was something of an illusion. The restoration of capitalism in the former USSR led to a huge rise in the death rate, and Russia’s return to a largely commodity-based economy, over-dependent on oil and gas. Again, airhead libertarianism shows its historical ignorance and cherry-picking.
*If you knew any economic history, you’d know that no such thing has ever existed, because markets always function according to law andor custom that permit some transactions and forbid others.
snoof @106 I will admit to not reading much Adam Smith. Maybe, you could be more specific with your references, so I can respond in a timely manner.
Tony @107 Am I really being that vague that my example of the Soviet Union and many of its satellites went right on by? I’m sorry I didn’t spell it out for you. Do I have to explain myself further? @108 How well are these things being handled by government, now? How well are the Russian or Saudi governments handling lgbtqi, minority, or gender issues, now? I’ve already explained how environmental problems should be handled (you mess it up, you clean it up).
Nerd @109 Why would I expect you to pay attention to what I wrote. Critical thinking may not be my strong point, but, you seem to have abandoned it long ago.
Patrick G @111 My experience with government sponsored health care in California is that, for all intensive purposes, it does not exist. Only a handful of doctors accept it, and those that do have crappy service and long waits. Your results may differ. Nor, are people starving to death in my town. Thanks to government? Not as much as the private food banks. I suppose you think by mentioning lobbyists, you think I like government/business entanglements. Not so much.
I’ll try and get back to the rest of your responses when I get back from work.
Which is unbelievably fucking stupid. If you cause the extinction of a species, destroy an old-growth forest or the ozone layer, contaminate an aquifer, acidify the ocean… you can’t clean it up. Are you really so gormlessly divorced from reality you can’t get that through your skull?
No liberturd uses critical thinking. They use sloganeering thinking. A slogan to be used for every criticism, no matter how non-sequitur.
Critical. thinking requires a reality check of your theology, and to see if it actually worked in history, economics, and politics. Liberturdism fails the reality check. Otherwise, you could point to a thirty year period where it was used by a first world country in the last century. Don’t expect us to do the critical thinking you should have done before you sloganeered here.
You obviously have the understanding of a kindergarten kid.
First, as Nick said, you can’t fucking clean up the destroyed Ozone layer, second, what use is a bankrupt company (because cleaning up is expensive) to the victims, third, how do you meassure responsibility with something that was caused by multiple players across the globe like acid rain?
aarongrow @124: So you are in favor of using the coercive power of the state to force people to “clean it up”, or at least to seize their assets to pay for that cleanup?
Of course, we have a problem long before we get to cleaning up messes, which is: who is “you”? Presumably you don’t want to abolish corporations or similar collective entities (even though they are state-sponsored grants of special treatment, including legal immunity). What happens when “you” no longer exists because it dissolved years before the mess it left was discovered? Or when it was acquired by a larger corporation; you do understand that there are very complicated rules for where a corporation’s liabilities end up when it becomes a subsidiary or changes form? How about if it simply can’t “clean it up” because the assets for that cleanup simply do not exist?
The simplest understanding of how markets work should make the cost-benefit analysis of not having to “clean it up” problematic for the rest of us.
BTW, if you live in California, your belief that private entities like food banks are the real buffers against poverty is either incredibly clueless or flat-out dishonest. Food banks here are desperate and overwhelmed with need. They do not provide health care, housing assistance, WIC, disability income, or any of a plethora of things that make up the support network. Yes, that government network is woefully underfunded and rickety. Isn’t that what libertarians want?
aarongrow @124
My question was simple. Please define a “free market”.
See, I know what I mean when I use the term, and I know what neoclassical economists mean, but I don’t know what you mean, like in your comment 100. I’m not sure you know what you mean either. Hence the question.
@raven #22
-No; the real Libertarian utopias are Hong Kong, Estonia, and Georgia -moderately well-off places. Is it easy to start a business or are investors well-protected in Somalia, Honduras, or Mali? Are property rights well-protected there? No. So stop claiming these places are Libertarian utopias.
http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings
@Nick Gotts #123
-It’s not an “awkward fact”. It’s called “petroleum”. I’m sure you’ve heard of it.
I have never really understood how libertarians, especially American libertarians, can point to places like Hong Kong, Singapore and Estonia as good examples of libertarianism. All of them have social supports that they would rail against if instituted in the US. Nearly 50% of people in Hong Kong live in public housing, 85% are in public housing in Singapore, Hong Kong has been able to support itself with low corporate and personal taxes by exploiting land sales, as it owned most of the land in Hong Kong. All of them have public healthcare systems that cover most people much more fully than in the US.
Travis, Singapore’s drug laws and speech restrictions are much too odious for any libertarian. Here’s what David Friedman (son of Milton) had to say about Singapore:
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2013/10/singapore-china-and-21st-century.html
As for Hong Kong, its land ownership is outweighed by its very high level of business and trade freedom and its comparatively simple tax code.
There are many reasons I would not have thought libertarians would think Singapore to be a great example, but that has not stopped a significant number that I have run into holding it up as an example. I know some people can see past their high scores on economic freedom indexes, but apparently not everyone.
aarongrow:
Vague? About what? Your unsubstantiated claims? You’re being less than vague. No, I had no idea you were talking about the Soviet Union. I’m still working on my mind reading, and even though I have a bald head, it doesn’t double as a crystal ball capable of discerning your innermost thoughts.
Yes, you ought to explain yourself further rather than responding to requests for clarity with questions.
One of your biggest problems (aside from being a libertarian, but the cure for that isn’t effective on everyone) is that you continue to present no evidence to support your claims, yet you expect people to accept them as truth (and if you didn’t, then why are you participating in this conversation). Let me explain bc clearly your comprehension fails to meet Pharyngula standards.
When you make claims about reality, claims that you expect others to believe, it falls upon you to provide evidence in support of those claims. Mundane claims do not require evidence. Mundane claims are of the sort that are commonly experienced by other humans:
“I woke up this morning”
“I brushed my teeth after I awoke”
“I drank a cup of coffee this morning”
“I had breakfast with my coffee”
These are subjective (& mundane) anecdotes about your experiences, and do not require evidence (unless you’re a hyperskeptic, and even then, they don’t doubt all claims, just those of sexual assault and harassment from women)
Stronger assertions, such as claims about reality do require evidence in support of them, otherwise you’ll be dismissed. Examples of claims about reality that require evidence:
• Homeopathic remedy X is an effective remedy for ailment Y. This would be a claim that needs supporting evidence to be taken as truth. Who wants to waste their money on a product that does not perform as advertised? If a commenter were to present this claim without evidence, they would be dismissed.
This being an atheist blog, one of the most obvious examples of a claim that needs supporting evidence comes from theists:
• God created the universe.
That’s a claim that needs supporting evidence. In fact, it’s an extraordinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is upon the individual making the claim to provide evidence in support of it. To date, no theist has provided empirical, replicable, verifiable evidence for the existence of any deity. That is a claim that can be dismissed (if and when sufficient evidence is presented to substantiate the claim, then we can adjust our opinions).
Now, let’s see how one can provide evidence for a claim:
Homeopathy is a sham.
See what I did there?
I made a claim.
Now what should I do? I back it up:
One could make the argument that I ought to provide evidence from a primary source, and that’s a reasonable argument to make. However, my point is that evidence of some sort should be provided. If a commenter points out that the evidence is shaky, then I should go back and search for more solid evidence.
You’ve now been given examples of claims that require evidence, and you’ve seen an example of a claim being made, and supported with evidence, so let’s look at some of the claims you’ve made-
@100, you said:
You’ve actually made 2 claims here: a) free markets are generally superior to controlled markets & b) history lends credence to that idea. You have presented no evidence in support of either a) or b). Until you do so, your claims will be dismissed. There’s no reason to believe them. Moreover, your participation, such as it is, in this conversation will not be regarded as worthwhile to others because it appears you expect people to simply accept that what you say is the truth. There’s a word for that: gullibility. There are plenty of synonyms for that word too, if that word is not to your liking.
You made another claim @92:
And again, you’ve provided no evidence to support this claim. Like the other statements you’ve made, it too, will be dismissed. You’ve given no one any reason to believe that your words are true. To make matters worse-for you-you’ve now made multiple statements that you expect others to take at face value and shown that you refuse to provide evidence in support of those statements. You’re not going to be well regarded around here if you continue to act in this way. If you’re truly interested in participating in a conversation, then you need to substantiate your claims with more than hot air.
To be honest though, I’d rather you just STFU and go away.
BTW, I was being intentionally condescending and patronizing to you. I hope you were able to discern that.
Ta.
Enopoletus Harding
#130
Hmm. Hong Kong, where the state owns all the land, Estonia, which has benefitted massively from EU grants, and Georgia, where growth has depended heavily on remittances from workers abroad (high unemployment meaning they couldn’t get jobs at home), and IMF and World Bank assistance on easy terms because of its status as a useful thorn in Russia’s side.
#131
Nice try, but no cigar. Petroleum prices were not significantly lower during that period than in the interwar period, and not much lower than in the 1990s. According to libertarian dogma, the high taxes and state intervention of the 1945-73 period should have made growth impossible and choked off the unprecedented flood of innovation which made it possible to exploit cheap petroleum.
True, I didn’t make myself clear by using poor wording. My lack of education often leaves me poorly equipped to present a convincing argument to the intellectual elite that frequent this blog. I intended to keep defending myself and my positions, but, Nick made me realize that you won’t even accept that I’m not a racist, woman hater, which was the point of my rant in the first place. It doesn’t help that you want me to defend positions I haven’t taken. So, I will present one last argument before I leave you to your echo chamber. I do work with and for a lot of large corporations. Almost all of them expect us to not meet, but exceed OSHA and CalOSHA regulations. Not so much because of what government might say, but because they are afraid of getting sued. A small government imposed fine is a pittance compared to a nice fat jury award. That threat can be a major motivator to do right. Thank you for your interest. Good day to you.
aarongrow @ 137
[sarcasm]
Oh, of course. The court system! That has nothing to do with government! It’s totally different!
[/sarcasm]
(Anyone have any studies on how regulation-via-lawsuit compares with regulation-via-government agency?)
aarongrow:
Your claims aren’t convincing because of how little they reflect reality, when they’re not so vague as to be incomprehensible. Being more educated or more clever about how you present your bullshit would not help you here.
Accepting that wouldn’t mean that the views you’re advancing don’t have those sorts of consequences. I personally don’t give a fuck what your beliefs or intentions are, so I’m happy to accept that you are “not a racist, woman hater” (whatever the fuck that means to you). I care about reality and what happens in it, and the part of reality inside of your head is irrelevant in this case. Libertarianism’s only response is “the market can sort it out,” which effectively means, if you genuinely do care about these issues, “let’s hope it happens on accident, somehow.” That’s not a fucking solution to anything. Instead of calling it quits here to shield your beliefs against these criticisms, try to reflect on why that is. You don’t even have to tell me what you’re thinking — go through it for yourself (based on some real evidence, not just fooling yourself some more with your own opinions) and see what you come up with.
You may not be a racist or woman hater, but you are either a fool or a liar, since I didn’t call you either: I noted that the effect of libertarian ideology is to support racism and sexism, whatever the intent. Here’s what I actually said:
Evidently you have no substantive response to the points made against your fuckwitted ideology, nor the imagination to come up with any sneer more accurate or original than “echo-chamber”. You might have noticed that another of your tedious ilk, Enopoletus Harding, has commented in the same thread, and in fact we regularly encounter libertarians here. Just because the great majority of regular commenters here reject your stupid dogmas does not make it an “echo chamber”, any more than the fact that they reject the stupid dogmas of religion. Now please, stick the flounce.
Apologies: #140 was in response to aarongrow@137.
Sorry, what you are unable to see that your liberturd policies results in de facto segregation, misogyny, etc. Which you need to provide third party evidence to show it doesn’t. *snicker* Why? That is what happens when government doesn’t take steps to prevent both overt and de facto racism and misogyny.
Except the government can padlock your door and seize your assets if you don’t cease and desist with more pollution, and clean up your old pollution. Which is worse? No business, or a bankrupt business?
@Nick Gotts #136
-Why do you fail to look at the other component of the Supply&Demand graph, quantity supplied? Demand for petroleum was not constant during the 20th century!
Only about 9% of Georgians receive international remittances, much fewer than in such backwards places as the Comoros, Zimbabwe, and Haiti.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147446/three-percent-worldwide-international-remittances.aspx
-[citation needed].
aarongrow @137:
Still no evidence for any of your beliefs.
You couldn’t argue your way out of a bag of hot air. Which is exactly what you are.
Also, this is amusing:
Intellectual elite? That’s laughable. You don’t know a damn thing about the level of education achieved by anyone else here*, so this claim is so much hot air.
Myself, I’ve only completed two years of college, and yeah, there are times I feel like I can’t compete with others here who I feel are infinitely smarter, but none of them have ever made me feel stupid. I haven’t been looked down upon bc I haven’t completed college. When PZ posts about a subject that this outside my skill set or skill level, I often don’t comment. I try to recognize my strengths and weaknesses. You ought to do the same. The problem you have has nothing to do with your level of intellect, nor with your perception of the intelligence of the commentariat. It has to do with your ability to argue. Which sucks.
*except for PZ
aarongrow
Praios the Just, this is wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to start…
1.) There is a vast difference in power between a worker and their employer, or a small community and a big company. Even if you could keep the court impartial, lawsuits require lots of resources, something big players have and small players don’t have
2.) It’s only something you can do after the fact. The damage is already done
3.) Who is allowed to sue whom? CFCs damage the Ozone layer which in turn increases incidence of skin cancer. Now you get skin cancer. Who are you going to sue for personal damages? How can we make sure that your skin cancer was due to the hole in the Ozone layer*?
4.) Do you understand that people are able to cause more damage than they can repay? That’s why the evil government usually demands that you have insurance before you’re allowed to drive a car. Because everybody understands that a kid with a car can cause more damage than they can ever repay in their whole life.
5.) The threat of complete ruin and even prison sentences do not actually deter people from acting in deeply unethical ways. Lots of ordinary people lost all their investments in the recent crash. One of the fucking biggest banks in the world went bankrupt. The maximum “penalty” for the bank, its own obliteration didn’t keep them from fucking us all up.
*My grandpa was a miner. COPD is a frequent suffering in miners. Liability claims used to be deflected like this:
You have COPD?
-Yes
Did you ever smoke?
-Yes ->Your COPD is the result of your smoking, no compensation
-No
Did you ever go to pubs?
-Yes -> People smoke in pubs. Your COPD is the result of you going to a pub where people smoked, no compensation.
In short, since damages that are not the results of accidents can also have other contributing factors, it could never be established that this was the cause of your problem and since it would be unfair to make somebody pay for something they did not cause, nothing happened
Thankfully, that changed. Only it was of course government that changed the rules.
Enopoletus Harding@144,
Of course it wasn’t. So what? More petroleum was used because the economy was growing. Mere availability of petroleum didn’t make it grow all by itself, did it? That was a necessary but not sufficient condition. Petroleum was just as available in the 1920s and 1930s, and in the 1990s, but in all cases – when there were lower taxes and less state intervention – growth was much slower. Libertarian dogma predicts the opposite. If libertarianism were an empriical hypothesis rather than a quasi-religion, you’d clearly abandon it in the case of this evidence – and of course the case of China, which you understandably avoid.
Again, so what? According to wikipedia these remittances, together with aid from the USA and international institutions, are what’s keeping Georgia financially stable:
Srsly? Libertarians are perpetually whining that high taxes and state intervention restrict innovation. Here’s the first page I happened to find when googling “libertarianism taxes innovation”.
aarongrow: “My lack of education often leaves me poorly equipped to present a convincing argument to the intellectual elite that frequent this blog.”
Hmm. And yet you’d rather flounce and insist you are right rather than learning from those who are well educated. Methinks I understand why you lack education.
Please, oh you of superior mind, save me from my stubborn ignorance. Thankfully, your infallible opinions are offered to those of us hopelessly mired in failed thinking.
I can’t help but think how many of you remind me of the Yahoo commenters, but, in a liberal vein. Just as stupid, hate filled, and intolerant. Let’s not forget humorless and arrogant.
-Nonsense. Annual world petroleum output per capita increased by over 400% between 1945 and 1973. It’s been stagnant since the early 1980s.
http://ocho.uwaterloo.ca/~pfieguth/Personal/EnergyLimits/Figures/oil_per_capita.jpg
-How does the “case of China” lead one to abandon libertarianism? China went from a less libertarian state to a more libertarian one and became the second largest economy in the world. While world oil production per capita was stagnant.
-Why aren’t Zimbabwe, the Comoros, and Haiti having the same results from their international remittances as Georgia?
You need to provide evidence for your specific (and extraordinary) claim that
You failed to do so. Probably because no libertarian ever said that or any libertarian theory or set of theories ever led to this conclusion.
aaronggrow:
Why is it so difficult for you to provide evidence in support of your assertions? Why are you ignoring how important that is?
No one has claimed to have infallible opinions.
No one has claimed to have superior minds.
Humor is virtually impossible to get across online, so one has to be really, really skilled at utilizing and conveying humor. I’ve failed plenty of time. You’ve failed too.
As for arrogance, you’re the one asserting that you know things, but failing to provide supporting evidence. Then you whine over and over again when asked simple questions. You’re not here to engage honestly fool.
Wander off somewhere else where people will believe every word that drips from your mouth.
Well, if you weren’t filled with hate, intolerant to those who know more than you, humorless, and arrogant (all liberturds are arrogant and ignorant a dozen times over), you might get a better reception. Especially if you can provide first rate evidence your theology works in the real world….
No liberturd has done that in the 6+years they have infested this blog. All ignorance, and their slogans….
Yawn, funny how third world countries are described that entertain morally bankrupt liberturdian ideals. No first world countries. Must be a character flaw is the reality isn’t getting through to slogans to the alleged empirical mind….
Nerd, tax cuts and spending cuts aren’t the sum of “libertarian ideals”. But you should already know that.
Did I say he reminded me of grade school? Yes I did!
Conversation with my grade schooler:
Me: Do you remember what you have to do today in school?
Kid: Yes!
Me: Cool, can you repeat it for me?
Kid: I know it!
Me: Sure, now, what is it?
Kid: You’re mean! You don’t believe me, I hate you!
Us: How will libertarianism solve this problem?
aarongrow: Here’s an easy solution to a complicated problem!
Us: how will it work?
aarongrow: this is an easy solution! It works!
Us: How exactly? Here’s reasons why we think it won’t work…
aarongrow: You’re mean! You don’t believe me, I hate you!
Oh, don’t forget the lack of social safety net, the boom and bust cycles, and the utter disdain of the concept of the common good. A morally bankrupt theology that took me five minutes to see the fatal flaws in the theology. It is a theology since there is no historical, economic, or political evidence it works as written. When tried, it created monopolies, trusts, cartels, and anything but what the liberturd theology claims will happen. *spit*
I did give evidence, though you won’t accept it. I don’t imagine you’ll accept this observation as anecdotal evidence, either, but, I don’t have a life, either, so, here we are. An argument about the 46-73 growth has been given as proof of the benefits of government regulation and taxation*. Regulations and taxation did not relax in the 70’s. If anything, they increased with the federalism pushed by Nixon and the birth of the EPA, OSHA, and the like. The 70’s brought recession that lingered until Reagan pushed lower taxes and looser regulations in the 80’s. The 90’s brought us a huge tech boom and the internet, which was allowed to grow while being mostly unregulated. How does that fit with your position that regulation and taxation are things that promote economic growth.
Do you think “liberturd” is enough of a change from “libertard” to avoid arguments of insensitivity? It seems to me to be similar to calling African-Americans “naggers”. Changing a letter doesn’t fool anybody. You only have fooled yourself, and confirmed my Yahoo commenter comparison.
*Which contradicts the argument that the growth was due to the lack of destruction on our soil after WWII versus the rest of the world. So, which is it?
Evidence is links the third parties, like academia, who do proper studies. Your word of something isn’t and never will be evidence.
No links, no evidence, so quit lying and bullshitting.
Example of lying and bullshitting for political reasons. The ’70’s recessions were caused by OPEC feeling their oats and driving up the price of crude oil. OPEC fell apart shortly before Reagan took office. He had the advantage of dropping fuel prices, and industry getting their cost under control. The Lafer curve proved to be false, as tax revenues dropped after Reagan tax cuts. The deregulation started the process that ended with the failure of large institutions a few years ago. Deregulation doesn’t work. Nothing in liberturd theology works as they claim. Read your history, not liberturd propaganda sites that ignore real history.
As opposed to liberal propaganda that ignores real history? A link to Wikipedia is all you’re looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. There you go. It’s only a little more vague than your link. I would love to see your link to these third party, academic studies that show what a failure libertarian ideas have been and the damage wrought on society. Peer reviewed, of course, would be required. A meta-analysis of the large body of academic studies done on the subject would be better.
If the OPEC actions of the 70’s caused the downturn, maybe you could explain why the same didn’t happen in the 00’s. The 70’s thing seems to have had an immediate and almost retroactive effect, while it took 10 years for rising prices to seemingly do the same in the 00’s? Or, is there little or no relation to each incidence? Why wouldn’t they have the same impact, if price was the deciding factor? Where is the meta-analysis of the studies that formed your informed opinion?
Oh brother. So we know he can produce a link. But he can’t produce a link to any evidence to support any of the claims he’s made.
Dude, you’re pathetic. You’re not here to argue honestly. You’re here to assert your beliefs as truth. Fuck off.
Here’s another claim you’re making-and a vague one at that-with no supporting evidence:
Specifics. What ” liberal propaganda”, how does it ignore real history, and links to evidence that shows said “propaganda” is at odds with reality. You must be accustomed to dealing with people that don’t request that you back up your opinions. That’s not going to fly around here.
So put up or shut up.
aarongrow:
You think you’ve given evidence?
Like hell you did. The only time you’ve even provided a link in all of your comments was @160, and that wasn’t a link in support of any opinion. You have given no evidence to support anything you’ve said. You share anecdotes as if they’re representative of reality. Since you appear to be unaware:
You’re making claims about reality that *can* be (and likely have been) tested. You should be using evidence to support your opinions in an argument, not anecdotes. They don’t serve to prove that your words are true.
It did. Ever hear of the mortgage failures, and banking crisis? All due to unsuppressed greed and lack of regulation.
If you mean the price of crude oil, it wasn’t sudden externally imposed jacking up of oil prices, but rather real supply and demand, which was accounted for with appropriate projections.
Still not making your case, as every unevidence claim you make is considered like every other unevidenced claim from a liberturd. I don’t believe a word you say in support of your theology.
Until you supply a refuting link, the link stands. Welcome to reality. Your words need support. Either start providing that support, or we will continue to point and laugh at liberturd fuckwittery. It is so obviously a theology without any realism whatsoever. All accept on faith….
So, no. You will not provide to me the same that you ask of me. Okay. Thanks.
Actually, try this: Tax cuts make Kansas a basket case. (citations therein) I’ll be back with more, evidenceless liar and bullshitter (and liberturd, but that is redundant).
Raising minimum wage good for business. A real DUH, as more money circulating in the economy, as the poor spend their money, is good. Example , with primary downloadable paper embedded. Just like unemployment benefits are good for the economy.
It isn’t hard to refute liberturdism. I’m a scientist, so I’m evidence based, not faith based. Everything about liberturdism is faith based. Otherwise, they would have no trouble finding academic sources, not paid for by the Koch’s don’t think tanks.
Dang, Example for third sentence first paragraph lost it’s link. Here. And the paper is embedded for download….
aarongrow:
What the hell is your idea of evidence?
Shit pulled out of your ass does not count.
Anecdotes do not count.
How about this: Private charities cannot replace government assistance programs.
Kansas link is dead. HuffPo article link to study is dead. So, you’ve given me one link to one study on a liberal site. Don’t I feel stupid. How about I link to an article or two from the Ayn Rand Institute for something equally balanced and fair?
You’re a scientist? All the better. Why don’t you show me the scientific studies that prove either of us right or wrong. I won’t insist on it being double-blinded, but, a decent sample size with controls would be nice. That would sure beat the opinion pieces we keep talking about.
By the way, I don’t remember ever saying minimum wage was evil. Nor, unemployment benefits. For that matter, unemployment, like Social Security, is something I and my employer contribute to. Unemployment is their money to begin with. The Libertarian thing to do would be to give it to them.
Oh, so now the fuckwit gets to decide which sites count as evidence for a claim, all while producing NO evidence of his own. Dishonest trolling liberturd is dishonest. News at 11.
What’s really funny is that aarongrow claimed he was being pigeonholed as a liberturd, and yet at every turn, he shows that he’s *just* like the libertarians fools that come by here. Even told me he wasn’t a special snowflake. Dude, you think you’re a special snowflake, but you’re just a run of the mill, dime a dozen libertarian. Nothing special here.
Link to Lynna on Kansas. Previewed, so good,. I downloaded the article in HuffPo by clicking on the download link. I had already read the paper via Google Scholar. Why are you so stupid? Oh, right, you are a liberturd.
Ah, the creationist linking to a web site where the babble is considered presuppositionally inerrant, compared to the peer reviewed scientific literature? That is the difference between faith and evidence, my liberturd. All you have is faith. I look at the evidence, and it shows you faith is misplaced…..
Oh, still waiting for the thirty years of a first world country using liberturd theology in the last century. And, like expecting peer reviewed scientific literature that the Noachian Flud really happened, that is vaporware. Nobody will see it….
Nope, it is the company/government paying in toto…..What a ignorant asshole you are….
-It was the Independent Treasury era, not the boom-bust cycle-filled National Banking System era, that typified libertarian policy approaches. It is true, though, that libertarianism opposes coercive inter-generational transfer programs.
Also, Nerd, have you ever heard of something called the Vietnam War draft and late 1990s Stock Bubble? These are called “confounding variables”. One must adjust for them to make any valid conclusions.
You should also understand that the National Industrial Recovery Act (which established minimum hourly wages) killed the recovery in Summer 1933:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=Et1
As you can see, employers first responded to the wage increases by simply cutting hours, but later continued raising employees’ weekly earnings to above-1929 levels (by raising hours worked per day) during a period of >10% unemployment. Industrial production didn’t reach the July 1933 level again until after the NIRA was struck down by the Supreme Court, but by then, unions had already established themselves to such a degree as to make it impossible for businesses to cut wages back to appropriate levels.
Also, Nerd, what is this (from one of your links)?
-Clearly, this means if the cost shocks of the minimum wage become big due to the present real Federal minimum wage, say, doubling, then we would see the minimum wage having a significant negative impact on unemployment.
Also, I don’t read studies from labor union think tanks. They’re inevitably biased. Though the study you apparently reference in your PuffHo link ( http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf )does say
this does not mean that drastic changes to the Federal minimum wage are advisable, as most U.S. minimum wage increases have been of only a few dollars per hour. The recent Seattle planned minimum wage increases will be very interesting to look at.
Unemployment benefits are incentives for people to not find work.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/01/unemployment_in.html
–
-Some hypothetical person from the 16th century.
Tried the Kansas link on 2 different computers and it’s still dead. Got another way to access it? Seriously.
I have a line on my paycheck for a deduction for unemployment insurance. Sorry.
-Nonsense.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Conservatism-Reinterpretation-1900-1916/dp/0029166500
Gee fuckwitted liberturd, I tried the link, got to Lynna’s post and here is the NY Times link you seem to be too stupid to find:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/upshot/kansas-tax-cut-leaves-brownback-with-less-money.html?_r=0
And a link to Paul Krugman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/paul-krugman-charlatans-cranks-and-kansas.html
Still too stupid to admit you are WRONG?
@aarongrow #179
-It’s in Nerd’s 174.
Are you really that fucking stupid, Nerd, to think that I thought the ARI would be considered a legitimate source. I was giving you one equally unbiased as yours. I see what a waste it would be to follow your link, even if it wouldn’t give me a 404. You win. I give up. Government control is the best . Thanks for the conversation.
Enopoletus Harding, linking to liberturd literature is the equivalent of linking to creationist literature in debate on evolution. It is dismissed as fuckwittery, which is why you need to you citations to the academic literature, found here. Reality has a liberal bias, since both liberturds and RWA types must dictate what reality is, not accept it as it is….
Also, on the subject of the post, though Molyneux can and often does get much right, global warming denialism and chronic misogyny (even attempting to listen to that video makes me cringe) are grave indictments of the man’s character.
-So is linking to labor union literature. Did you read the Krugman textbook quotes?
Found it. I don’t care if government got less money and some Republican doesn’t get to spend it on rent boys and his cronies. Either way, fuck you.
Gee, thanks for admitting the truth. Conversation (or discussion) only occurs if you can admit you were wrong. You didn’t do that. You just admitted you lack the evidence to refute the truth, not that you think you were wrong….
That you ingore the blight of the unemployed with 6.1 million unemployed and only 200 thousand new jobs a month, fuck you arrogant and unfeeling asshole….
And unions are wrong how? Show the evidence, as you unevidenced claim is dismissed as fuckwittery….
And libertarians are wrong how? Show the evidence, as you unevidenced claim is dismissed as fuckwittery.
Stop setting double standards.
Unlike most libertarians, union leaders always have a financial stake in what they say.
Enopoletus:
Libertarians are the ones making claims about reality. It’s on you people to provide evidence in support of your claims. It’s not on anyone else to prove they *can’t* work.
@Tony!
If libertarians provide evidence in support of their claims in their literature, Nerd won’t accept it:
So if labor union leader-headed think tanks provide evidence in support of their claims in their literature, I won’t accept it, either. It’s only fair.
Enopoletus:
Perhaps that’s because those ideas presented are unworkable in reality (when they’re presented; look at aarongrow who keeps making assertions and has yet to produce one iota of evidence in support–not even to libertarian sites). As I linked to upthread, charities cannot replace government assistance programs in helping the poor. Yet I’ve seen libertarians (here at Pharyngula) claim that charity systems are better for providing support for the poor. That flies in the face of reality.
Or the idea that deregulating companies is a good idea. That’s flipping the bird to the environment, People of Color, queers, women, and any other marginalized groups that already get screwed over by companies. But at least under the current system, there is some method of recourse *and* that’s because there are regulations.
Here’s an example of employers screwing over employees:
The Raiders paid them less than minimum wage and got away with it. They’d likely have continued if they weren’t threatened with a lawsuit. The threat of a lawsuit only worked bc there are laws on the books. There are regulations.
They weren’t going to pay them out of the kindness of their heart. It took legal pressure. Legal pressure that only worked because there are laws on the books. There are regulations. If there were no regulations, these women would have had no recourse, no grounds to sue, and would continue being fucked over (note that they should make more than $9/hr too; that’s just the base minimum).
I’ve shown it. Their ideas are out of touch with reality, and they lie, bullshit and sloganeer, but won’t produce one iota of real academic evidence (just imagufactured evidence from Koch minions) What part of you make the claim this works, you need to back it up with reality don’t you understand. Your slogans aren’t evidence.
Single standard. Back up your words with reality, shown by citations from the academic literature. Simple. Too simple for liberturds who forget the need for a reality check.
Fine, but first REFUTE with a real citation, your disbelief is dismissed as liberturd faith. You can’t be wrong…Until you can be wrong, you can’t be right….
Citation one NPR Moody interview.
Citation two from Roosevelt Univeristy.
Citation three, from the Congresional Budget Office.
All from page one of a Google search. See how easy it is to refute liberturd bullshit? Why should anybody believe a word a liberturd says in defense of their theology?
Meanwhile aarongrow won’t offer a single citation to any source, reputable or questionable.
…did the ozone hole question ever get answered?
Maybe I just missed it.
I ask, because some of us dumb liberal types think economic growth could possibly be mooted by other concerns.
While we’re at it, I wonder what the average libertarian* might address the glaringly obvious problem with strictly seeking court redress against a company that – even if in the legal wrong – has the financial resources to spin a court case beyond any hope of reasonable compensation?
(*I include an asterisk due to the fact that arguing with libertarians online has taught me that no libertarian apparently believes what any libertarian believes – those other guys are never True Libertarians™)
Please disregard my HTML screwup @202. No idea what I did (wasn’t trying to link to anything).
A little less of the straw man on the basis of my beliefs https://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian
Another take on environmental concerns
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/09/a-simple-libertarian-argument-for-environmental-regulation/
An article explaining research showing conservatives and libertarians are about as stupid as you when it comes to economics. I just thought this was funny.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/i-was-wrong-and-so-are-you/308713/
Another explanation of how you can be an ignorant ass
http://www.edf.org/blog/2013/11/14/libertarian-argument-climate-action
This shows a bit of the variety of feminist thought
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/#ClaLibLibFem
I don’t know why I bothered to provide even these links, because it won’t change your ignorance, or keep you from lying, or keep you from burning straw men (I was going to say “burning hay”, but I know you are to dense to understand). I mean, if you are willing to tell me what I know is taken from my check isn’t taken from my check, you must be so disconnected from reality that you don’t really know what is going on outside of your little enclave of ignorance. I’m torn on how to respond to obviously mentally challenged people without being as insensitive as they are (no response to the liberturd insensitivity?), so, I will just say fuck you and the four legged mammal you rode in on.
It is you who is to dense to understand you believe without evidence in a flawed idiotology/theology. Liberturdism doesn’t work as described in real life. That alone is enough to ridicule it and those who believe in it.
Thank you for exposing your hypocrisy. You liberals talk about insensitivity, until you want to paint someone as a “retard”. You think you’ve disguised it behind “liberturd”, but, you have only fooled yourself. When you give sources, left wing bias is okay and expected. When you ask for sources, left wing bias is demanded and expected. When provided sources and examples, you say it doesn’t count, if it contradicts you. You still can’t answer why you tried to lie to me about my withholding, among other things. I am seriously beginning to wonder if you have a mental disorder that keeps you from thinking clearly. What I am sure of is that you are the moral equivalent of an MRA. Get help, soon.
Just answer the question on the second paragraph @158. I really want to hear you justify that.
Wait, not one of those links @201 is from an academic study. NPR? An opinion piece from a guy on a university web site? The CBO? WTF? You are such a hypocritical fool. Can you step in any deeper shit and still smell roses? You are living in a fantasy world.
No, I mean turd as in shit headed thinker.
Sources do matter. The Koch brother fund a liberturd propaganda mill. Show with evidence that academic papers are “liberal”, other than reality has a liberal bias.
Liberturd, You must believe believe what I say, I don’t lie and bullshit
Creobot, You must believe me that my deity exists, and my bible is inerrant
MRA/PUA, You must believe me that feminism is hurting everybody.
Me, OK, show me the EVIDENCE, which I will define is needed, that backs you claims from legitimate sources outside of yourself and your theology/idiotology presuppositional biases.
The silence is deafening. Same from you. No evidence for libertudian theology being used by a first world country for thirty years in the last century. Now, think, WHY can’t you provide that evidence. My conclusion? It doesn’t exist, and your theology isn’t workable.
Welcome to The Liberal Church of Hypocritical Windbags with Pastor Nerd of Braindead. Buy into the liberal theology or be “corrected” with fire.
Yet, your theology is workable? You can’t be serious. You sure seem to fool yourself easily. Maybe, you are serious. That is scary.
And, still no response to anything but that? What did I expect? (answer: less than nothing)
I have another question for you. My boss got a call about an employee out with a back strain. The workman’s compensation people think he’s faking it and is completely unmotivated to complete his therapy. I know what I would do, but, what is the radlib response to this situation? Their response it to make him go work for the homeless shelter doing light duty until he’s ready for a full return to work. They like to do this for many reasons, to provide services to those in need, and to motivate them to get back to work. It seems that a lot of “serious” disabilities go away when told they have to work for the homeless. I’m guessing your answer would be to let him sit on his ass until he drives our business into bankruptcy. After all, it’s only fair, right?
“No evidence for libertudian theology being used by a first world country for thirty years in the last century.” Why do you keep going on about that? Why 30 years? Why first world? I did give an example of an economy from less than 30 years ago, worldwide, that is successful and libertarian. Based in a system built by corporations working for the government that languished in obscurity until private enterprise ran with it, the internet is a nice example of a minimally regulated marketplace that is used as such, outside totalitarian societies, by the world. While not built on libertarian ideas, it sure is successful using them.
“The silence is deafening”
Yes, it is.
aarongrow:
The saying isn’t “reality has a libertarian bias”…
aarongrow:
Oh my god you are pathetic.
“liberturd” or “libturd” = contemptible person who is a libertarian
As you can easily see from above, “turd” is not a variation of “re*ard”. The commentariat around here do not use bigoted slurs, nor does our blog host tolerate using them. They’re grounds for banning. You’d know that if you bothered to check the commenting rules.
What about the academic links Enopoletus Harding provided? You or Tony didn’t see those? Didn’t see it, or, was it too academic for you?
@ Nerd #201
-From the CBO link:
-Nothing to argue with here.
Also, savings aren’t permanently idle. If they’re eventually converted into investment, they will grow the economy. It is lack of investment, not lack of consumption, that has made this recovery so weak:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=EON
Whoa, there, Enopoletus. You shouldn’t read so far into articles that refute their points without Nerd approval. Besides, I’m sure that, since the CBO isn’t an academic institution, their arguments in favor of your position are invalid, while their arguments in favor of Nerd’s position are completely valid.
@ aarongrow
-? I thought I only provided one (the link to the Triumph of Conservatism book). David R. Henderson’s a libertarian and an academic, but the link to his analysis wasn’t really academic in nature. I don’t know whether to consider the FRED graphs academic. You make good points in your #215. Though I am by no means very good at using academic literature to support my views (I am much more familiar with non-academic libertarian literature), I understand it is always important to read the papers interventionists reference (unless those papers are obviously biased) in order to see whether those papers really support those interventionists’ conclusions and to understand the points the interventionists are trying to make. I do not take Nerd very seriously, as he has not yet shown himself to be very serious.
Thanks for admitting you have nothing but faith without evidence. Which can and is dismissed as fuckwittery.
Nope, putting money into the economy in the form of welfare and unemployment benefits keep the economy going, and make it even attractive for investment. Why are liberturds so stupid when it comes to basic economics, even somebody who never took an econ course can understand. Oh, yes, I have no presuppositions, but look at the data….
-Can you read? Are you considering the effects of investor financing of government debt crowding out investor financing of new business? Or are you just a shithole without any good argument and with a boatload of empty assertions?
-What the hell do you mean by this?
And your EVIDENCE ASSHOLE? No link, claim dismissed as fuckwittery. What part of you supplying evidnence to back your claims don’t you understand? The concept of Evidence apparently….
As long as I see no evidence you’re considering any of the evidence I provide (e.g., CBO quote, Triumph of Conservatism book, FRED graphs, Krugman textbook quotes), I’m going to consider you a stupid troll.
What links? I see nothing but claims. And I did link to the CBO refuting your idiocy, but you are too stupid and too much a troll to acknowledge you have fuckshit….Typical of liberturds. The only evidence you see is the evidence you think backs you claims. But like climate denialists, and creationists, they usually don’t say at the end of the day what you want…
I don’t have to take your alleged evidence, if it doesn’t meet my needs, as anything other than fuckwittery.
Where the fuck is your thirty year first world liberturd policies in the last century.
I know what the thirty plus year between the Civil War and the the turn of the century here in the USA says. Nothing but monopolies, trusts, oligarchs, and boom/bust cycles where the poor suffer greatly during the busts. Prove otherwise with something other than your word….,
Note for the record that aarongrow fails to acknowledge being wrong about ‘liberturd’. The accusations he directed at Nerd are baseless, and have not been apologized for.
-No, turd, it confirmed my thoughts that unemployment benefits do not help the economy in the long run. Are you too stupid to read my comment 220?
-Closest has been Hong Kong, which is doing fine.
-Jesus fucking Christ, man! Did you read the Triumph of Conservatism book? Go on, do so! Have you ever heard of the National Banking System, Nerd/turd? Doesn’t sound very libertarian, does it?
Well, this has been edifying.
If anyone wants (what I’d consider) a sound economic analysis, I’d offer:
http://equitablegrowth.org/2014/03/24/no-i-really-do-not-think-that-we-were-doomed-to-the-lesser-depression-plus-the-greater-stagnation-i-think-paul-krugman-gets-one-wrong-here-monday-focus-march-24-2014/
If it’s not quite as fight-y as you’d prefer, don’t blame me, blame Brad. TYVM.
Are you too stupid to read my link in #201? I don’t believe a word you say without confirming evidence. You are a liberturd. Lying and bullshitting comes with the turf. Here’s another way to show that. What evidence is required for liberturdism to be wrong, and for you to disown it???
Oh, and for you lurkers, if EH can produce the 30 years of liberturd policies from a first world country in the last century, which shouldn’t be hard job if liberturdism anything other than a theology without evidence, I will concede xe has a point. Until then, nothing but a liar and bullshitter…..
-That’s exactly what I read, turd! Do you even read the things you reference? I am astonished at your stupidity.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44929-UnemploymentBenefits.pdf
-Very well. Say “libertarianism” and I’ll answer.
Also, since people are throwing around FRED graphs, a sharp real-terms credit contraction. (I don’t think Brad gives this enough importance, but hey, that’s what the comment section on that blog is for.)
And your reference to thirty years of liberturd political philosophy running a first world country in the last century is WHERE?
What part of you are a liar and bullshitter in the eyes of both me and lurkers until you supply said evidence I require don’t you understand?
You, by your evasions, prove me right with every post you make. Which is why liberturds are abject losers. They can’t put up, and don’t have the honesty and integrity to shut the fuck up…
@ Nerd
So you refuse to admit you fucked up on linking to the CBO. Or fucked up on stating that the manic business cycle of the 1866-1899 period were somehow the fault of libertarianism. All right then, I’m no longer replying to you on this thread. As you say,
-Arbitrary standards are arbitrary. You neither defined “first world country” nor “libturd political philosophy running”. No country is perfectly run to the specifications of some political ideology.
@ cm
-Yes, the deleveraging has greatly contributed to the slowdown, but I think it’s ending soon:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USLSTL
The popping of this stock (and, quite possibly, fracking) bubble will be dreadful.
No fuck up. You are wrong until you evidence you self right. As it typical with evidence based system…
As you tacitly admit, you have nothing cogent to say, since you can’t/won’t show the thirty years….
Doesn’t matter, you can’t even come close, and we both know that. Why you think your lies are believed is against any rational expectation….
You’re a liberturd. What you think or opine should be treated with a grain of salt the size of Montana….
Erm, you do understand that these are two (related but) completely different things? That is, high charge-offs on lending induce credit contraction, not the other way around? Your graph implies that now, with charge-offs at historic lows, is the time for credit expansion. It’s true that governments are trying to push this, but it’s not at all clear that it’s happening.
*confuzzled*
-Yes, I do understand this.
-Yes, that is what I think will happen in the next Friedman Unit. The year-to-year change in inflation adjusted household and nonprofit debt is clearly going to go positive (for the first time since Quarter 1 of 2008) sometime this year:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=EQa
I’m amazed at the patience PZ has with Nerd.
Enopoletus, @177 you linked to 3 studies, including the one I couldn’t get to through Huffpo. I was talking about those. I’m casting a vote for shithole troll (and I thought I was bad).
Tony, anyone with a knowledge of history knows that the word from Nerd, and others, was “libertard” and “creatard”, until it wasn’t cool to mock people with “retard” anymore. Those changed to “liberturd” and “creobot”. So, you’re right that I am not acknowledging that I’m wrong, because, I have some semblance of memory. Baseless? Um, no.
Im still puzzled by this 30 year obsession you have. Is that your age and you want something you can reference? Is that your IQ (if we’re being generous)? Do you have this epic thirty year example you have yet to wave in our face? I’m really tired of hearing about how magical the number 30 is.
I think I have it figured out. Nerd is a presuppositionalist. Like the Christians from whom we get the term, but, seemingly, without the god. Start from the position that the Bible is true because God said so and you can’t even ask them if God is real. Nerd starts with the supposition that a liberal is always right and nothing you or anyone can do to convince them otherwise. It’s not like Nerd is alone. I’ve met many of the same from Christian, atheist, Objectivist, communist, whatever. I used to be more like that, but, like I said, I’m not an idealist. It will take a lot more than a few presuppositionalist liberal platitudes to change my mind.
So says the presuppositionalist. All liberturds must be, as there isn’t evidence to show their theology works.
I asked for certain evidence. Silence was deafening.
Now, what evidence is required for you to admit libertudism is a morally bankrupt and unworkable idiotology? If you can’t answer that, you are a presuppositionalist.
It took me five minutes of thinking about 25 years ago to figure out the obvious fatal flaws in liberturdism. Nothing since then has changed my mind as the basic idiotology hasn’t changed. You can’t find those flaws. Think about that for a while….
@ aarongrow
-Yup, definitely, presuppositionalist to the core. Acts like one, too, with his constant demands for evidence, and, when evidence is presented, refusal to even look at it. I still don’t understand why PZ tolerates him.
Not only the constant arbitrary demands and refusal to look at evidence, but the refusal to provide similar evidence. I asked if Nerd had this 30 year study to provide, but, … silence.
I think PZ likes having the Nerds around to chase us away.
Did you provide the thirty year evidence? If not, nothing else needs to be looked at assholes, as it is only a piece, and not the totality, of your fuckwittery. By the way, are you two fuckwits sockpuppets?
All ready to teach fuckwittery and nobody wants to listen to your lies and bullshit…must be frustrating for those too arrogant and ignorant to even tell us what evidence is required to to make you acknowledge you believe in bullshit…..
I gave you my answer. Either provide the evidence, or shut the fuck up like you should….
Where is your 30 year body of evidence, Bishop Nerd of Economics? Put up, or, shut up. Where the fuck have you answered any questions? Links to opinion pieces or “scientific” studies are the best you’re capable of, because you are incapable of independent thought. That, in turn, prevents you from accepting the idea that anyone else is capable of independent thought. All you are is a character in an Ayn Rand novel, a caricature of an anti-enterprise, government-knows-best “intellectual”.
I suppose I could have made a scene about calling attntion to your hypocrisy by calling myself out about the recent link I posted not being academic, and then pointing out to myself 3 academic links I posted earlier in the discussion. I would probably save time and just point to them directly, if I was a puppet master. Less typing.
Try the whole first world who doesn’t use your useless and unworkable theology loser, and hasn’t for the last century. You know that. Ignorant and arrogant be you.
Typical liberturd. All mouth, all attitude, and nothing whatsoever to prove that reality is congruent with liberturdism. It isn’t.
So, … nothing?
@aarongrow
-Definitely. So far as I can see, Nerd is drunkenly shouting against concepts he has no understanding of. Also, he contradicts himself on the matter of whether libertarianism has been attempted in the real world.
At risk of sounding like your sock puppet, yeah. I certainly have not made the best arguments, but I tried. Nerd gave up trying a long time ago. I knew we weren’t going to get anything from the first reading of “reality has a liberal bias”. If that isn’t the sloganeering we were accused of, I don’t know what is.
You have nothing asshole, whereas I have the whole first world ignoring your unworkable theology. You can’t say Liberturdistan, and link to the wiki article showing used liberturdian principles from 1960-present, and is now an economic basket case living on foreign aid.
Whereas I can point to Germany, France, England, US, Canada, and the rest of the first world countries, and they DON’T us your principles, they have things like government sponsored medical care, social safety nets, education, etc. all paid for with tax monies.
What part of evidence don’t you understand? If their economies are working, and their people prosperous, they refute your idiotology. That is evidence.
Are you still blathering? Your response just proves what a stupid fucking idiot you are. Repeatedly ignoring what I, or anyone else, said and then saying we didn’t answer. Asking for evidence that won’t be accepted because it doesn’t support your predetermined conclusion, while refusing to provide the same type of evidence that you demand of the rest of the world. You are the religious one here. You argue like the stupidest creationist.
I asked for specific evidence, evidence that your idiotology is taken seriously enough to be tried somewhere in the world. Silence. You didn’t even come back and say Utopistan from 1975 to 1995 (link). Dead silence.
And your silence shows what the world thinks of your unworkable idiotology. And I point out some economies doing very well with the social safety nets yours takes away.
Again, where is YOUR
Dang, keyboard went spastic.
Aarongrow, you can’t show your idiotology works by presenting little pieces here and there. You have to show a reasonable model of it in toto in order for it to be properly evaluated. I typically use as the example of your “paradise” the US post Civil War until the turn of the century, when anti-trust and other regulations came into being. A time of boom and busts, starvation at the lower end during the busts, private charities unable to cope, workers fired for getting hurt on the job, unsafe and unclean food, and host of other ills. A hellhole for those on the lower end of the scale.
All you’ve done is piece together small studies and opinion pieces, which is all I’ve done. Enopoletus had better. I, however, have never claimed the scientific high ground, because, this is not a subject you can do a scientific study on. Show me the peer reviewed, blinded study on which economic system is best. Show me a comparison study showing what types of economies deliver the most to the most. Until you’ve done that, you’ve shown yourself to be nothing but a blowhard creationist. I’ve never claimed pure economic anarchy is the only way society can survive, however you want to paint me into that corner. I don’t know if you believe anything other than business bad, government good. I belive you don’t have a fucking clue about anything other than what’s in your tiny little world.
No, you claim your liberturdism is the best, as you and EH claim, then it is up to YOU to provide that information. My claim is YOU look at the evidence too. Since it doesn’t exist, what I can show you is that liberturdism isn’t used by any first world country, nor has it been used in the last century, and no country appears ready to adopt your theology. What part of that are you having trouble with? I suspect you think you are so damn important and your theology so foolproof, that only blindness on the part of those you argue with keep them from becoming true believers too.
I work in a highly regulated, but very profitable industry. Since most of our sales are to pharma companies, we have adopted ICH guidelines where I work, since the pharma industry operates world-wide under them. Does this quality program add to our costs? Yep, about 7%. But we make that up in the premium we charge our customers for that program. What do they get in return? Product for their use that consistently meets multi-compendial requirements, with proper documentation, and inspection by both our clients and the FDA. If the FDA audits them, and they say they buy from us, the questions about the material stop there. We are a known and safe place to buy the material they need.
The next time you buy a bottle of aspirin, or get a prescription drug, do you not have trust that the label and the ingredients inside the bottle match? And that the dosage per pill/capsule is what it should be, ± small tolerances. And that there are no adulterants or foreign material present? That is what ICH regulation does, it generates trust. You don’t have to get the latest USP/EP/JP and personally check for potency.
Just a reminder that every time ,including its introduction, that the FDA got more power, it was due to the failure of industry to police itself and people dying or being hurt. But then, you just can’t see the industry not policing itself…..
What a ridiculous and intellectually dishonest request.
Aside from refusing to even define what it means to be “best”, all that is asked for is a study that libertarianism is actually better than any of the economic systems that exist in the world today or have been tried in the historical past.
One should be cognizant of how the modern regulated economies actually came about. Democratic governments didn’t spring up de novo deciding to regulate this or that. In each and every case, regulations were instituted only after an abject failure of the non-regulated industry to police itself, leading to a widespread and quite public horror. In most cases, governments were dragged, kicking and screaming, by a public outcry they tried and failed to ignore for durations that could span decades to regulate.
The default for early all democratic governments (and particularly the one in the United States) had been not to regulate. Nearly every major modern instance of a government regulation on an industry has its origin rooted in the abject failure of non-governmental forces to properly regulate said industry for the benefit of the people involved.
One problem with libertarianism is it’s purely theoretical. There has never been a libertarian society so the libertarians can play the “it would be paradise on Earth” game and critics can’t point to any real world flaws in the theory. I’m reminded of the 1960s hippies who dreamed of redoing society: “It’ll be groovy, Man, you’ll just love it.” Libertarians make exactly the same arguments based on exactly the same type of fantasies. I can say that the libertarians want the rich to own all the wealth and the rest of us to live in grinding poverty. The libertarians can say that’s not what they want at all. Neither of us can muster anything other than anecdotal evidence to support our claims.
@ #260 Amphiox
-This is, at best, half-true.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Conservatism-Reinterpretation-1900-1916/dp/0029166500
@ Al Dente
-Strangely enough (or not) it is the wealthy social-democratic welfare states which most embody the libertarian principle of protection of property rights:
http://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/
This is how they can afford to have half their economies be dominated by government. Many countries with little to no respect for property rights (e.g., Yemen, Zimbabwe, Chad) simply can’t afford to have half their economies be dominated by government without mass starvation.
America in the 1850s embodied both the principles of protection of property rights (except those of blacks and Native Americans) and limited government as a %age of economy. This, along with widespread literacy, is why it grew so rapidly.
So far as I know, the only first (or even upper second)-world country that has gotten away with both remarkably poor protection of property rights and comparatively little primary sector export dependence is Argentina. But I think even this has been for only a decade or two.
You happen to work in an industry that has profited quite well in a highly regulated market. Of course, they tend to spend a lot of time lobbying politicians to keep it that way. Another market that is highly regulated and highly profitable is the one for illegal drugs. Sometimes, government intervention can be good, sometimes bad. I would like to see a little less government intervention and more competition in pricing in health care. I would love to see competition bring down prices in general health care, similar to what is going on with cosmetic surgery. I don’t have good insurance and not many places accept the Medi-Cal my kids use. I hear the same about availability from those on the new system. My kids can get pot, meth, and ecstasy from school, though. So, hooray for what highly regulated markets do for me. Thank government for your position, and for keeping me from smoking pot, drinking too much soda, playing with too strong of magnets, and making sure your car has ethanol. I’m not quite so enthusiastic about all they do.
Nerd continues on his merry crusade to conflate poverty (the natural state of human affairs), the already fairly regulated (due to Lincoln’s war) economy of 1866-99, and a hypothetical state of affairs operating purely under libertarian principles. aarongrow, if you respond to the character, please mention that UL existed before the OSHA.
Amphiox and Al Dente, thanks for ignoring the previous 250 comments and whatever from them that might be relevant to your comments.
Amphiox, that request was no more or less dishonest than Nerd’s. I only ask what has been asked of me.
Al Dente, I may not argue my position well, but, as I have previously mentioned, I don’t believe in utopias, and I won’t argue for them.
Enopoletus, I’m sure that a great argument is coming from Nerd that will put us to shame. One that is different from previous arguments, I hope.
aarongrow @266
Fuck you, asshole. I read the whole thread before I made my post @261. You have offered NOTHING but anecdotal evidence and “gee, looneytarianism would be just neato-peachy-keen” bullshit in this entire thread. Do some critical thinking before you try to bullshit me. But I forgot, you’re a libertarian. Thinking isn’t your first language.
I linked to the same type of studies and opinion pieces as Nerd, and Enopoletus did similar. That was just before that was rejected, because “reality has a liberal bias.” Maybe, you were being too much of an asshole to notice. Though, since you didn’t mock with modified attacks insulting to the mentally challenged, you might have read through and learned something. Well, some if it. Not enough of it to even come close to understanding what I’ve been saying, but some. Neato-peachy-keen government worship is all I’ve been countered with. But, you’ve presented all the evidence I need to change my mind on this whole thing. That just leaves me with this movie quote, “Fuck me? No. Fuck you.”
HOW MANY DEATHS EQUALS DUE TO BAD DRUGS EQUALS YOUR LIBERTURDISM?
And had so many busts where the social safety net was overwhelmed, but you don’t give a shit due to idtiotology purity. We both know that. You don’t give a shit about the folks unable to find work due to 1000 jobs and 200,000 jobless…
At the moment, there are 6.2 million umemployed, and only 200,000 jobs created per month.
Which is better for the economy and why:
1) give unemployment benefits to the 6.2 million unemployed, and let the money they spend, which is everything they receive, circulate in the economy.
2) cut them off, and have no money from the 6.2 million unemployed circulating from them through the economy?
Show your work….
How many did Vioxx and Phen-Phen kill? I don’t know. I do know that prescription, FDA approved, drugs kill more people than all illegal drugs combined. Again, there are some places government comes in handy, but your government worship is unjustified. What is the death count of government vs. business? I bet that of business is way lower.
How much of that post Civil War economic rise was due to such a large portion of the population being given some semblance of freedom to do with their labor as they saw fit? I suppose you would tell the ex slaves that it was a due to the magnanimity of the white government of the North? Freed slaves loved government assistance in the form of Jim Crow and and didn’t mind when government chose not to protect them from lynchings. You really need to think through your examples a little more thoroughly.
Again, you’re not paying attention to what I’ve already said. I suppose you’re going to tell me the state doesn’t deduct money from my paycheck for that purpose, again? Are you going to lie, again?
Unevidenced assertion, dismissed without evidence. That is your problem Your word alone with support is worthless liberturd. All liberturd have lied and bullshitted here.
Are you ever going to back up your evidenceless assertions with solid and conclusive evidence? No links, nothing you say is believed….
Oh, and the links are that stopping unemployment benefits is better than continuing them. That you avoid. like SSA, you pay in very little compared to what you get out….
aarongrow @273/275
If we consider Wars an act of Government you are accidentally correct. However this still doesn’t make the case that the FDA should be shut down and all products should just be stamped with “Caveat Emptor”.
Additionally wouldn’t you agree any deaths because of either government or business are bad? If that’s the case wouldn’t the government enforcing safety regulations and trying to make sure products aren’t poisonous be a net positive? Because the response to “Businesses can cause harm and death” shouldn’t be “Let’s help them cause more harm and inflict more deaths!”
No I rather think Nerd has paid attention to what you’ve said. Have you been paying attention to Nerd? Because nerd never denied the existence of taxes like you seem to be implying, and in this entire exchange Nerd hasn’t yet lied. Also I rather can’t fathom what that little sniping about taxes is supposed to mean. What exactly are you mentioning taxes for?
I’m not going to touch that slavery post BTW. There’s so much obtuse about it, and I’d rather (foolishly) give the benefit of the doubt than just assume my initial guess about what it means was correct.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/26/prescription-drugs-number-one-cause-preventable-death-in-us.aspx
Stupid fucking loser
Do I have to post a picture of my pay stub?
Omnicrom, that was in response to Nerd telling me that the state doesn’t deduct money from my check for SUI (State Unemployment Insurance). I suppose you want a picture, too? Seems to me you’re already making assumptions about an argument that has been going on for days. Why stop, now?
Man is that what you were on about? I genuinely couldn’t tell because you’re so ham-handed about getting your point across. If you’re going to reference something from a hundred posts I would suggest you make that clearer.
Also that mercola website smells of crankery. I’m not going to trust the authority of a website that tells you not to take prescription medications, and there’s more than a little scaremongering with a subsection declaring PHARMAGEDDON. It really seems like it’s grasped the wrong end of the stick on the issue of over-prescribing drugs, and it’s run all the way quack town. Good nutrition and exercise and stress reduction are good for your health yes, but the site recommends them to the exclusion of all medication which is complete bullshit. And again even if Mercola is correct that still doesn’t flow naturally into “Dismantle the FDA and remove all regulation from everything”.
Mercola? You mean… this Mercola? The guy who is, well, clearly a crank?
You really want to cite him as a reliable source?
Some better researched numbers:
Statistics from here. Interestingly enough, even if Mercola’s figures are right, death by pharma isn’t even in the top 10.
@aarongrow: It’s been a while since I was employed in California, so some of my experience may be stale. I have, however, verified it through the pertinent federal (//www.unemploymentinsurance.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp) and state (//www.edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/What_Are_State_Payroll_Taxes.htm) websites. Conclusion first: if your employer is passing his SUI tax on to you, you should call your local EDD (Employment Development Division) office, because he’s stealing from you, and part of the EDD’s job is to protect employees from such employer lawbreaking.
SUI (State Unemployment Insurance) is a tax on the employer (the feds point out that 3 states have employee taxes as well, but CA doesn’t admit to being one of them). It is a percentage of your pay rate, but is not to be deducted from your pay. The SUI percentage is based on the employer’s history of (basically) employees laid off over the recent past.
There is a similar tax that is deducted, called SDI (State Disability Insurance), also administered by EDD. As its name suggests, it covers you in the case of certain disabilities. If your employer provides equal or better disability insurance through a private carrier, you don’t pay SDI (this statement possibly stale).
Nerd is correct. You, aarongrow are, at best, mistaken.
I will admit I haven’t got a clue who Mercola is. Now that I have a lttle more time and am less tired, let me try again.
How about this one?
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/overdose/facts.html
This one has a nice graphic that even you should be able to understand
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/which-drugs-actually-kill-americans
Is Alternet liberal enough for you to believe?
http://www.alternet.org/story/147318/100,000_americans_die_each_year_from_prescription_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich
Omnicrom, I’m sorry you didn’t read the past week of arguments, but, I am not going to completely restate my arguments every 10 posts to make sure you can keep up. You might even be able to remind me of where I ever said “dismantle the FDA” when you read through all my arguments.
se habla espol, I read SUI” off my wife’s pay stub. Her stub has a separate”workmans comp” deduction that is the SDI deduction. She works for the local school district as a preschool teacher. My daughter works for the same school district, and, it’s on hers, too. I will find a way to post pictures of my pay stub, later, since that appears to be the only way to convince you.
se habla espol, the school district is doing it, too. I find it difficult to believe they are breaking the law. By the way, this is the same government institution that cut many workers hours to get them under the part time limits, so they didn’t have to provide health insurance. More of the great work of a government looking out for the people?
Oh, wasn’t a full work week and benefits a Union idea? And where are the unions? They don’t exist in liberturdia., You have a problem with your own idiotology….
Example of the herbal industry, which isn’t regulated by the FDA like ethical pharmaceuticals: NY Times. Let the buyer beware…..Which will happen with deregulation. Derugulation doesn’t work as described, and causes other problems.
I don’t expect you to restate your arguments every 10 posts. However stating your arguments when you make them clearly would be nice. As would keeping a coherent flow.
Anyways you’ll have to excuse me again aaron, at no point did you suggest anything outside the usual libertarian folderol, or indeed suggest you were anything but a generic dyed-in-the-wool libertarian who hates the government and wants it to shut down. It’s fairly standard libertarian dogma to say that regulatory services like the FDA are unneeded and Caveat Emptor and the
nonexistentInvisible hand of the market are all that we need to stay safe.This whole discussion came about because you accused the regulars of this blog as mindless government worshipers. This particular line of argument appears to be you trying show that government is much more dangerous to people’s welfare than business using the example of prescription drug deaths to try and tar the FDA, and considering your fierce love for unilateral deregulation what was I supposed to think? You rail against the government, are in complete alignment with standard libertarian beliefs that call for the vast majority of the government must be shut down, and make specific arguments about the evil wrought by FDA certified prescription drugs. No seriously, what exactly was I supposed to think? That despite being anti-government and anti-FDA you had no problem with it’s continued existence?
So let me then ask you straight out so you can stop playing gotcha games and trying to score points: Do you support the FDA? Do you want it to stay open? In your ideal Libertarian society would you have a Food and Drug Administration to accredit the safety of products?
There you go, Nerd. Deflect the argument when you were shown to be wrong. I have admitted I’m wrong, which you said I would never do. When are you going to do the same. You, obviously, don’t know what is going on in California, so, let me clue you in. The state government is very pro-union. The government unions, teachers among them, have lots of power in this state. They, like a lot of people, are more concerned with keeping theirs than including anyone else. Hence, the teachers union doesn’t give a damn, apparently, about the lowly, non-degreed teachers and their assistants in the preschools. Unions aren’t as egalitarian as you might think.
omnicrom, I’m pretty sure you haven’t read this thread from the beginning, since, I pretty much told everyone from shortly after the beginning that my problem was with the implication that anyone with a libertarian bent is a mysogonistic, racist, science denier. Also, I stated that I fit the lefty and pot smoker panels in a libertarian cartoon posted by PZ a while back. That would mean that I did state I am not a generic dyed-in-the-wool libertarian who hates the government and wants it to shut down. You are making a straw man of me as much as Nerd is. Why I drew the argument to the FDA was that Nerd won’t accept that the FDA could possibly do something with a negative impact upon society. In Nerd’s opinion, government can do no wrong and business can do no right. I happen to distrust both government and business, but, the government has more power over me than any businessman, so, I tend to come down harder on government. Though, I expect you will not believe me, since I haven’t released this position in a peer reviewed journal (aimed more at Nerd than you), I am not an anarchist that wants to see all government destroyed. The FDA is mostly necessary, the EPA is partly necessary, the DEA is entirely unnecessary. If there was an ideal world, depending on your definition of ideal, no government would be necessary. We don’t live in an ideal world. Of course, if you started reading from the beginning, and you were honest, you would have seen that, in one way or another, I’ve answered your concerns. If you pick up a conversation from the middle, expect to not to fully comprehend what is being discussed.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/07/sugar-plant-removed-safety-device-13-days-before-temp-worker-was-buried-alive/
(excerpt)
The product is the most important thing. Workers’ rights and safety be damned. Remove regulations, and this type of thing is likely to happen more (unless you live in the mythical land of libertopia, where the free market will magically protect workers from all harm).
Nope, in libertopia, there is no such thing as unemployment insurance. Unless you personally and at high cost purchase a policy. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT YOUR IDIOTOLOGY.
Actually, they are. But, the groups you mentioned aren’t part of the unions, usually due to the fact that they don’t ask for representation, or fail hours, etc required by law. DUH. NO UNIONS IN LIBERTUDIA….
Then you need to shut the fuck up about liberturdism in general, and only mention the points of your contention. Liberturdism covers a huge ground, including a return to the gold standard, no central bank, no unions, no government regulations, no FDA, USDA, CDC, NIH, public schools, public universities, and host of changes, that ensure those that have fuck the rest of us. We know that since we have been arguing against the hard core liberturds for 6+years.
That is a strawman fuckwittery. Anybody can do wrong. But I trust government compared to private enterprise. Why? Who is each group accountable to? One, the citizens of this country. The other, faceless shareholders….
Why? Sounds stupid to me.
Ah, now we get it. You aren’t a liberturd, you are an anarchist. Government is necessary, and if you can’t figure out why you are one dumb fuckwitted idjit.
Nope, you have been arguing straight liberturdism, and supporting a liberturd (EH) when they posted. You have problems? Educate yourself first before you emotions get the better of your judgement.
If you thing FDA and EPA are necessary, you aren’t either an anarchist or liberturd, just a confused person…,,.
Tony, I would say that the manager is personally responsible for the workers death, especially since the simple safety device that was a part of the standard equipment was removed at that managers demand. Since the manager is a representative of the company, the company is at least financially responsible. If this was a recurring problem, the board and stockholders should also bear some personal responsibility for the damage caused by their company. Maybe, you think that I only believe the corporation has rights and the individual has none, but, as usual, you would be wrong. Though, I don’t know why you’re bringing up another argument, when you haven’t responded to my response to your last accusation. (For those of you demanding I keep track for you, that was @241)
Damn it. I forgot to take pictures of my pay stub to get Nerd to off my back. I’ll set myself a reminder.
Thanks for the teachers union history lesson, Nerd. Maybe, you could remind me of the union’s prerequisites for admission. I’m sure that you know them, being the expert on California that you are. The rest of your arguments are so tediously convoluted and stupid that I don’t know if I should respond. I mean, do you even know what anarchy is? How do you get from “The FDA is mostly necessary, …” to anarchist? Are you being this stupid on purpose? I thing, you are.
Nerd, I couldn’t find mine, so you must be right. Just for fun, though, I linked to a picture of my wife’s stub for her work at the school district.
http://s128.photobucket.com/user/fatherdaddy/media/paystub2014-07-08001.jpg.html
se habla espol, got anything to say, now?
Sorry, lurkers. You’re going to have to trace the source of this argument yourselves.
Who gives a shit? If you think you proved me wrong on anything, you are one delusioanl fool. Liberturdism doesn’t work in reality. You have provided no evidence otherwise, and haven’t changed your tune.
Dismissed as a fuckwitted idjit. You are that stupid. You prefer supposition to reality, and can’t even link to Union contracts, state and federal laws, and anything else of relevancy to avoid your stupidity. I work at a a union shop, but as salaried exempt, I’m not a member, and can be fired at will. They can be fired for cause, and not everybody is member for various reasons, which may be simply part-time versus full time status. Which is important.
Yes.
Thank you for posting the paycheck scan, even though it’s your wife’s, that clearly demonstrates that Nerd and I were absolutely correct and that your earlier claim was absolutely incorrect. In fact, the scan shows that your early claims were not only incorrect, but that you actively misrepresented what the ‘evidence’ would show.
Reading the scan you posted, one observes that (a) nothing was deducted from pay for SUI (score for Nerd, misrepresentation foul on aarongrow); and (b) that the employer (school district?) paid $.32 ‘Contribution’ for SUI (score one for me).
May I suggest (Nerd may join in, at his discretion) that henceforth you pay attention to reality before you start spouting off, especially when that reality has been called to your attention.
aarongrow:
I’m under no obligation to respond to anything you say you blithering fuckwitted libertarian asshole. But since I’m bored…
I’ve been commenting at Pharyngula for over 4 years now, and reading for 5. I’ve seen no indication that Nerd or any others originally used that phrase. I also note that you’ve not linked to anything to support your assertion, while *I* did link to a definition of ‘turd’.
Moreover, even *if* you’re right, the fact that they *don’t* use the word anymore, and have spoken out about people using any word using the -tard suffix means they’ve changed their mind and realized that it’s wrong to use it. I don’t expect people to be perfect. I’m fully aware because of our culture, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia and more permeate our society. You can’t escape it. What you *can* do, once you become aware of it, is to do your part not to perpetuate it. For a decent person (count yourself out), when they realize the ableism behind ‘libert$rd’, they stop using the word and find another one. a simple switch to ‘turd’ changes the meaning of the word, and ensures it’s not a bigoted slur.
So no, you didn’t win your gotcha. Try harder you apathetic asshole.
I see aarongrow has learned how to create links. I wonder if he’s learned how to support his arguments with evidence. Come to think of it, it might be hard to support libertarianism with actual facts.
se habla espol, I wonder how much that has to do with her low income. Just a thought. If I’m wrong, I retract what I said. The most obvious argument against my stance would be that it varies from state to state, and many states aren’t like the one I live in. Talking to my boss, yesterday, confirms my argument, but I can’t drag him into this discussion, so, I tentatively cede to your argument.
Tony, thanks for letting me ignore you, as I, too, am under no obligation to respond to anything you say. I, too, am bored. Too bored by you to go on any further.
My aunt is a liberal. She has told me on more than one occasion how the population of this country should be reduced to the level of the hunter-gatherer societies that lived here before the European invasion, which she determined was about ten million, to reach a sustainable level. Similar population reductions were needed worldwide, in her opinion. She wasn’t too particular about how we got there, but, she wasn’t suggesting only birth control (actually, none at all). That leaves war, starvation, and disease. I could assume that all liberals are just as anti-human as she can be, but, I know there is a variety of liberal, and conservative, opinion. I don’t assume you are all lock-step, mindless zombies, like you seemingly assume everyone else, especially anyone with a libertarian bent, to be. I don’t expect that to change how you argue, but, I have trouble letting things go as much as you seem to have the same trouble, so, here we are. I think it’s time I let it go.
It has been interesting. Thanks for your time.