Options

Why Are So Many "Nerds" Libertarians?

1356722

Posts

  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Libertarianism is quite possibly the most idiotic ideal ever.

    Yep, it managed to usurp communism for that dubious honor.
    (I kid! I kid! I <3 you, kakos!)

    Libertarianism has yet to kill millions of people, have its apologists deny this until shown the data, then afterwards claim that the Libertarianism that they thought was going on wasn't Libertarianism, and that it hasn't been tried, and that we should give it another shot.

    Then what the fuck was the Gilded Age?

    It wasn't that terrible. If you were an urban worker, it sucked, but still...

    As bad as it was, it didn't fucking result in millions of people dying of starvation or political executions.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    It didn't?

    Soviet housing blocks were if anything better than tenement slums

    Senjutsu on
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    I'm not really worried about this at present, because even the largest corporations are completely dwarfed by the Government.

    ahahahahhahaha

    there's a large number of corporations with turnovers larger than good-size countries, and they definitely have the political clout to get 90% of what they want whenever they want.

    You overestimate their political clout. And remember that corporations are just groups of people whose soul motive is profit, so (ideally) they are predictable, rational and by extension, controllable.

    And if Feral can quote himself:
    Nationalization of corporate assets in the West is rare, so mostly I'm thinking about the recent events in Bolivia. The assets of numerous foreign companies were seized on the bequest of the Government. Now, although these corporations have more money than the Bolivian Government, they were completely powerless to stop them. They just had to take the deal that was given to them.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2007
    It wasn't that terrible. If you were an urban worker, it sucked, but still...

    As bad as it was, it didn't fucking result in millions of people dying of starvation or political executions.

    Well, who needs that when you have tuberculosis and cholera

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    I'm not really worried about this at present, because even the largest corporations are completely dwarfed by the Government.

    ahahahahhahaha

    there's a large number of corporations with turnovers larger than good-size countries, and they definitely have the political clout to get 90% of what they want whenever they want.

    You overestimate their political clout. And remember that corporations are just groups of people whose soul motive is profit, so (ideally) they are predictable, rational and by extension, controllable.

    None of those things imply a human-friendly outlook.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    It didn't?

    No, it didn't.
    Soviet housing blocks were if anything better than tenement slums

    Yes, but try sending a letter.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    It wasn't that terrible. If you were an urban worker, it sucked, but still...

    As bad as it was, it didn't fucking result in millions of people dying of starvation or political executions.

    Well, who needs that when you have tuberculosis and cholera

    Well yeah, but they had freedom!

    So what we've established is that libertarianism in practice works out no worse than communism in practice. For a majority of us here, this is not a resounding endorsement.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    It wasn't that terrible. If you were an urban worker, it sucked, but still...

    As bad as it was, it didn't fucking result in millions of people dying of starvation or political executions.

    Well, who needs that when you have tuberculosis and cholera

    I'd rather live in the Gilded age because at least I could, you know, read a book. Or hell, go live on a farm.

    Anyways, yeah, OK. I get it. They both suck, OK?

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    As bad as it was, it didn't fucking result in millions of people dying of starvation or political executions.
    What about the Irish potato famine?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2007
    If you think textile workers in dickensian england had access to libraries you're an idiot. And they weren't able to work on farms because there were no jobs free. Jesus christ, if you're going to get in to this can you read some history first please?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    It didn't?

    No, it didn't.
    So disease doesn't exist in Libertarian land, or it didn't run rampant in the urban slums of the gilded age? Forced 60+ hour work weeks in perilous mines didn't kill anyone? Fires in overcrowded slums and the absence of those evil inefficiant socialized firefighters didn't wrack up massive death tolls? Help me nail down just which part of history you're wrong about here.
    Soviet housing blocks were if anything better than tenement slums

    Yes, but try sending a letter.
    Oh well at least we're dispelling the myth that Libertarians have fucked up priorities.

    Senjutsu on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    It wasn't that terrible. If you were an urban worker, it sucked, but still...

    As bad as it was, it didn't fucking result in millions of people dying of starvation or political executions.

    Well, who needs that when you have tuberculosis and cholera

    I'd rather live in the Gilded age because at least I could, you know, read a book. Or hell, go live on a farm.

    Anyways, yeah, OK. I get it. They both suck, OK?

    Living on a farm really sucked during the gilded age.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Soviet housing blocks were if anything better than tenement slums

    Yes, but try sending a letter.
    Oh well at least we're dispelling the myth that Libertarians have fucked up priorities.

    By proving it's not a myth?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    It wasn't that terrible. If you were an urban worker, it sucked, but still...

    As bad as it was, it didn't fucking result in millions of people dying of starvation or political executions.

    Or a farmer, or a person who wasn't white.

    But for that good ol' .01%, it was peachy keen, good sir. Peachy keen.


    Department of Homeland Security. Gone. Department of Agriculture. Gone. Department of Labor. Gone. Department of the Interior. Gone. Department of Energy. Gone.

    Have you...read anything on the American depression? President Hoover, Harding, and Coolidge were basically what we'd not call libertarians, and they said that farmers, etc, could do whatever they wanted. Look at what happened there, apples costing a nickle, and people still on the verge of starvation.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited September 2007
    Jesus Christ, how long do I have to live for Communism to not be the preferred bugaboo of people with nothing to say?

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Jesus Christ, how long do I have to live for Communism to not be the preferred bugaboo of people with nothing to say?

    Yeah, I really regret making that joke now.
    Pity, such a fine joke it was.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It wasn't that terrible. If you were an urban worker, it sucked, but still...

    As bad as it was, it didn't fucking result in millions of people dying of starvation or political executions.

    Well, who needs that when you have tuberculosis and cholera

    Well yeah, but they had freedom!

    So what we've established is that libertarianism in practice works out no worse than communism in practice. For a majority of us here, this is not a resounding endorsement.

    I think that's an unfair assessment. I mean, at the time it wasn't any easier living anywhere else - Britain, France, Russia, etc. You put a peasant anywhere in that time and the result was the same.

    However, the differences between the Soviet worker's lifestyle and the Western worker's lifestyle is night and day.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Soviet housing blocks were if anything better than tenement slums

    Yes, but try sending a letter.
    Oh well at least we're dispelling the myth that Libertarians have fucked up priorities.

    By proving it's not a myth?

    I was being facetious, yes

    Senjutsu on
  • Options
    AlectharAlecthar Alan Shore We're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Jesus Christ, how long do I have to live for Communism to not be the preferred bugaboo of people with nothing to say?

    A very long time, I'm sorry to say. Irritating people who regard Marx's Manifesto as some kind of holy book and moron stoner types have given it a bad name even on today's college campuses.

    Alecthar on
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Department of Homeland Security. Gone. Department of Agriculture. Gone. Department of Labor. Gone. Department of the Interior. Gone. Department of Energy. Gone.

    Have you...read anything on the American depression? President Hoover, Harding, and Coolidge were basically what we'd not call libertarians, and they said that farmers, etc, could do whatever they wanted. Look at what happened there, apples costing a nickle, and people still on the verge of starvation.

    The Depression was the result of the Federal Bank continually pursuing a tight monetary policy when it should not have. Nothing more.
    So disease doesn't exist in Libertarian land, or it didn't run rampant in the urban slums of the gilded age? Forced 60+ hour work weeks in perilous mines didn't kill anyone? Fires in overcrowded slums and the absence of those evil inefficiant socialized firefighters didn't wrack up massive death tolls? Help me nail down just which part of history you're wrong about here.

    Definitely, but that was more indicative of the current status of scientific understanding than anything else. I mean, we're talking about people living in an age before doctors washed their hands. And fuck, the libertarian ideal calls for anything with a neighborhood effect to be handled by the Government. Clearly fire-fighting is under this?

    There is a significant difference between people catching a disease in a slum because no one understands how infections spread to people being ordered shot because they disagree with you politically.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The Depression was the result of the Federal Bank continually pursuing a tight monetary policy when it should not have. Nothing more.
    If you ignore all of the debates over what caused the Great Depression, you might believe that.
    Definitely, but that was more indicative of the current status of scientific understanding than anything else. I mean, we're talking about people living in an age before doctors washed their hands. And fuck, the libertarian ideal calls for anything with a neighborhood effect to be handled by the Government. Clearly fire-fighting is under this?
    Everything would be handled by the government then. Nearly everything a person does has a neighborhood effect. It was also fairly obvious at the time that the conditions in the slums were extremely unhealthy.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Holy shitfucking moral equivalence, batman.

    Unchecked capitalism isn't very nice, but saying that it is on equal ground with communism which led to the willful starvation of millions of Ukrainians is simply asinine. It's not like there was a lack of food production either, especially compared to the effects of the dust bowl on American farms.

    Frankly, I'm a little disgusted.

    Savant on
  • Options
    OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    And, as usual, we come full circle for politics threads-- the position of the deviant creeps so far moderate that it's no longer distinguishable from traditional policy.

    titmouse is right-- if the libertarian ideal puts all neighborhood effects under government control, what does the libertarian ideal actually change?

    Didn't you just advocate disbanding the departments of labor, energy, agriculture, et al? How can you say those don't have neighborhood effects?

    Oboro on
    words
  • Options
    Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Why does American money have "In God We Trust" printed on it?
    "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24

    Che Guevara on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Who cares?

    Since when Soviet Russia the bar potential political systems have to clear to be acceptable?

    Shinto on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Why does American money have "In God We Trust" printed on it?
    "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24

    Because of the Cold War.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    (...Libertarians assume that people having competing, individualistic instincts rather than colluding tribal ones.)

    Seriously? I mean, what about the entirety of human history, and how people have always gathered together in various groupings? They just ignore all of that?

    FCD on
    Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    The Depression was the result of the Federal Bank continually pursuing a tight monetary policy when it should not have. Nothing more.
    If you ignore all of the debates over what caused the Great Depression, you might believe that.

    Most debates on the subject of the Great Depression are irrelevant, and legislation undertaken during the period exacerbated the problem. The New Deal was, at best, ineffectual, and at worst destructive. WW2 did little except give a bunch of young men something to do. In economic terms they might as well been paid to sit in Europe. Economic growth was only restored when the Federal bank began an easy money policy.

    The best Government policy offers protections without constraints, and without redundancy. The Departments of Labor, Energy, Interior, Agriculture fail at at least one of these.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    Che GuevaraChe Guevara __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Why does American money have "In God We Trust" printed on it?
    "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24

    Because of the Cold War.

    How so?

    Thats not where it began.

    Che Guevara on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    I'm sorry, how do they fall into those.

    Be specific.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Why does American money have "In God We Trust" printed on it?
    "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24

    Because of the Cold War.

    How so?

    Thats not where it began.

    Oh, I'm sorry. I read that as "under God" as in the pledge of allegiance.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    OboroOboro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Did you seriously just say that the New Deal AND World War II were ineffectual in regards to the end of the Great Depression?

    You need to write a textbook at this point. Start explaining, I guess? o_O

    Oboro on
    words
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Is it just me, or is blaming problems of health and sanitation in the era prior and leading up to the development of modern sanitation and health on libertarianism more than a little bit of a non sequitur? And you would have to be a pretty extremist anarcho-libertarian to believe that there is no public or government interest in sanitation. Even in that case, sanitation would still be present in the modern world if privatized, although possibly suboptimal.

    Savant on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Oboro wrote: »
    Did you seriously just say that the New Deal AND World War II were ineffectual in regards to the end of the Great Depression?

    You need to write a textbook at this point. Start explaining, I guess? o_O
    He needs to read a textbook at this point.

    A serious one.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    Is it just me, or is blaming problems of health and sanitation in the era prior and leading up to the development of modern sanitation and health on libertarianism more than a little bit of a non sequitur?

    I think they're trying to say that having large groups of people huddled together in cramped housing because they couldn't afford anything better contributed to the spread of lethal diseases, and this would still largely be the case were it not due to governmental intervention including but not limited to housing codes and labor laws.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited September 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Libertarianism is quite possibly the most idiotic ideal ever.

    Yep, it managed to usurp communism for that dubious honor.
    (I kid! I kid! I <3 you, kakos!)

    Libertarianism has yet to kill millions of people, have its apologists deny this until shown the data, then afterwards claim that the Libertarianism that they thought was going on wasn't Libertarianism, and that it hasn't been tried, and that we should give it another shot.

    Then what the fuck was the Gilded Age?

    Insufficiently lassez-faire, of course.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Is it just me, or is blaming problems of health and sanitation in the era prior and leading up to the development of modern sanitation and health on libertarianism more than a little bit of a non sequitur?

    I think they're trying to say that having large groups of people huddled together in cramped housing because they couldn't afford anything better contributed to the spread of lethal diseases, and this would still largely be the case were it not due to governmental intervention including but not limited to housing codes and labor laws.

    Also, complete lack of food safety/quality standards, same for air and water (and they did know enough about air pollution at least to realise the impact that stack emissions were having on city-dwellers' health). Also, no labour rights, so children under ten were working adult jobs, there were no pay regulations or any conception of a sane working day length. No factory safety regulations, either, so you got a lot of people-burning-to-death behind locked doors events. Government is good, people. it is good for you.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Government is good, people. it is good for you.
    Only when done right. Of course this can be broadly applied.

    Meat, for example, is good for you, when done right. Ever eaten poorly done meat? Not twice you haven't.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Libertarianism is quite possibly the most idiotic ideal ever.

    Yep, it managed to usurp communism for that dubious honor.
    (I kid! I kid! I <3 you, kakos!)

    Libertarianism has yet to kill millions of people, have its apologists deny this until shown the data, then afterwards claim that the Libertarianism that they thought was going on wasn't Libertarianism, and that it hasn't been tried, and that we should give it another shot.

    Then what the fuck was the Gilded Age?

    Insufficiently lassez-faire, of course.

    Win.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2007
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Government is good, people. it is good for you.
    Only when done right. Of course this can be broadly applied.

    Meat, for example, is good for you, when done right. Ever eaten poorly done meat? Not twice you haven't.

    Unless you have a cast-iron stomach, like some kind of badass pirate-ninja from space.

    ViolentChemistry on
Sign In or Register to comment.