Play Nice Random Chat Thread VII

[tricknologist]

Why the hell do people follow alt-right ideology, he aint libertarian.
he is just using a collection of terms or word salad, to entice people into techno feudalism, don't believe me look up his ties to Thiel.

I know all about Moldbug. I've read his stuff on and off for almost two decades now. I know all about his connections to Thiel (as well as Bannon and Vance). I used to argue with him quite a bit about how stupid his ideas are. But I don't see any reason for not calling him a libertarian, especially because afaic he has a point about how you need a centralised power to maintain order in any society.

 

[tricknologist]

He's not a libertarian and has written essays pointing out why. He's a bit of a nutter but well read.

iirc he's argued that he doesn't identify with most libertarians because he feels they don't take their arguments to their logical conclusion (that's his issue with Hoppe's argument), not that he rejects libertarianism outright. But yeah I definitely agree that he's a well read nutter.

 

[DesertRoo]

iirc he's argued that he doesn't identify with most libertarians because he feels they don't take their arguments to their logical conclusion (that's his issue with Hoppe's argument), not that he rejects libertarianism outright. But yeah I definitely agree that he's a well read nutter.

Nah the logical end to libertarinsim is to remove corporate protections and make individuals responsible for their actions.

IE do you think ceo's will be reckless with repairs with things like the Mariana Dam, if they faced actual accountability?

replacing statism with corporatism or feudalism isn't the answer.

 

[tricknologist]

Nah the logical end to libertarinsim is to remove corporate protections and make individuals responsible for their actions.

IE do you think ceo's will be reckless with repairs with things like the Mariana Dam, if they faced actual accountability?

replacing statism with corporatism or feudalism isn't the answer.

That's a vague ideal that isn't even inherently libertarian but, again, I don't see a reason for not calling him a libertarian. His ideal society involves minimal states that exist to minimise public costs, facilitate free markets, and enforce property rights and contracts. He takes an authoritarian approach because he doesn't think that you can adequately achieve those ends without an anti-democratic central authority. I mean, I'm a liberal who finds someone like Thatcher repulsive, but I wouldn't say she wasn't a liberal because I disagreed with her vision of liberalism.

 

[DesertRoo]

That's a vague ideal that isn't even inherently libertarian but, again, I don't see a reason for not calling him a libertarian. His ideal society involves minimal states that exist to minimise public costs, facilitate free markets, and enforce property rights and contracts. He takes an authoritarian approach because he doesn't think that you can adequately achieve those ends without an anti-democratic central authority. I mean, I'm a liberal who finds someone like Thatcher repulsive, but I wouldn't say she wasn't a liberal because I disagreed with her vision of liberalism.

The guy is advocating authority and claiming its the logical end..
it ain't, the logical end of putting individuals rights above all, is putting individuals rights and responsibilities above all.
People always seem to conveniently drop the second part of responsibilities.
This requires state and corporation protections to disappear, so people can't hide behind an entity, you don't remove one power structure, to put in place another.
how this works in practice, I have no idea, as we'll never get there because people self interest always gets in the way.

Also Libertarianism is ultimately a left wing ideal, has always been, since the days of the French Revolution.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

iirc he's argued that he doesn't identify with most libertarians because he feels they don't take their arguments to their logical conclusion (that's his issue with Hoppe's argument), not that he rejects libertarianism outright. But yeah I definitely agree that he's a well read nutter.

Yes most libertarians have never been close to having the chance to implement their set of ideals. He's gone all the way with it and given his opinion on how he would do it. That's not representative of the movement as a whole. Dave Smith is a Ron Paul disciple and will likely be their candidate at the next election. His views are more representative of the party/movement.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Nah the logical end to libertarinsim is to remove corporate protections and make individuals responsible for their actions.

IE do you think ceo's will be reckless with repairs with things like the Mariana Dam, if they faced actual accountability?

replacing statism with corporatism or feudalism isn't the answer.

Removing corporations and the state. Thats communism bud. At least in Lenin’s eyes.

Removing the state and letting corporations do whatever they want is libertarianism. Libertarians loooooove hierarchy. Their pissing and moaning usually comes from their frustration about not being at the top of it. The sure as **** d ont want to see the end of it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Val Keating]

Yes most libertarians have never been close to having the chance to implement their set of ideals. He's gone all the way with it and given his opinion on how he would do it. That's not representative of the movement as a whole. Dave Smith is a Ron Paul disciple and will likely be their candidate at the next election. His views are more representative of the party/movement.

Yep. And anti war is a massive part of their agenda, probably why there’s so much pushback.

He got kicked off one of the major news channels over there a few years back when he always talked about the US supporting the Saudi’s war on Yemen.

Also watched him rip Chris Como to pieces in a debate a few months back, I would’ve felt sorry for Como if he wasn’t bought and paid for.

 

[ferball]

Moldbug (who's a libertarian) has actually made really interesting arguments that libertarianism necessitates authoritarianism because the only way of achieving a minimal state is with a strong government that enforces a strict hierarchy. Not all libertarians are authoritarians, but the two ideas are hardly incompatible and there are a lot of libertarians who have authoritarian and fascistic streaks (as evidenced by Moldbug's significant online following).

Moldbug is a neo feudalist.

If you think he represents libertarianism then .. well i can understand your angst but you are railing against the wrong thing.

The biggest threat to the open, enlightened, progressive nature of our society is neo feudalism and the so called "Libertarians" who support it are nothing of the sort. The idea that everything is private property and there are no commons is not a libertarian idea, its just an extension of the ideas that all relationships are essentially business relationships, all identity is essentially a brand and all communication is marketing.

If you can't call something by its correct name then you can't identify it properly, and as a result can't react to it appropriately or control it where necessary. Because you don't know what it is you are reacting to. Its an old idea from esoteric thought across the world but its most obvious modern example is communication online.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Yep. And anti war is a massive part of their agenda, probably why there’s so much pushback.

He got kicked off one of the major news channels over there a few years back when he always talked about the US supporting the Saudi’s war on Yemen.

Also watched him rip Chris Como to pieces in a debate a few months back, I would’ve felt sorry for Como if he wasn’t bought and paid for.

Yeah it actually makes complete sense why the Democrats run by the Clintons, Obama and Bush era republicans hate Libertarians. Easy to call people names without substance and continue to fund wars and genocide.

 

[ferball]

Way off topic, the footage of United Health CEO Brian Thompson getting knocked has been released. Looks like a professional hit.

This is the sort of accountability corporate types need.

 

[ferball]

Why the hell do people follow alt-right ideology, he aint libertarian.
He is just using a collection of terms or word salad, to entice people into techno feudalism, don't believe me look up his ties to Thiel.

This 1000%.

 

[ferball]

Chad stop playing the victim..

Let it go. We're not communicating constructively when we jump into that stuff.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Yep. And anti war is a massive part of their agenda, probably why there’s so much pushback.

He got kicked off one of the major news channels over there a few years back when he always talked about the US supporting the Saudi’s war on Yemen.

Also watched him rip Chris Como to pieces in a debate a few months back, I would’ve felt sorry for Como if he wasn’t bought and paid for.

He endorsed Trump and gets a paycheck from News ltd. Just another cucked corporate who is neck deep in the ‘establishment’.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Oh this smith fella is all on Ross ulbricht. Fits nicely into the libertarian ‘either narcotic dealer or pedo’ rule quite snugly.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[ferball]

iirc he's argued that he doesn't identify with most libertarians because he feels they don't take their arguments to their logical conclusion (that's his issue with Hoppe's argument), not that he rejects libertarianism outright. But yeah I definitely agree that he's a well read nutter.

You can't take anything to its logical conclusion without ****ing everything else in the world up completely.

Most phenomena and systems exist on a spectrum and trend toward the middle of that spectrum. Pushing them to their extreme's drives things out of balance.

 

[ferball]

That's a vague ideal that isn't even inherently libertarian but, again, I don't see a reason for not calling him a libertarian. His ideal society involves minimal states that exist to minimise public costs, facilitate free markets, and enforce property rights and contracts. He takes an authoritarian approach because he doesn't think that you can adequately achieve those ends without an anti-democratic central authority. I mean, I'm a liberal who finds someone like Thatcher repulsive, but I wouldn't say she wasn't a liberal because I disagreed with her vision of liberalism.

His ideal state sounds like Thatcher's version of liberalism to me.

But then he adds a neo-feudalist hierarchy to it.

 

[ferball]

Nah the logical end to libertarinsim is to remove corporate protections and make individuals responsible for their actions.

IE do you think ceo's will be reckless with repairs with things like the Mariana Dam, if they faced actual accountability?

replacing statism with corporatism or feudalism isn't the answer.

Or you could shoot them as they made their way out of their hotel because you lost a close relative to their penny pinching bullshit.

 

[ferball]

Removing corporations and the state. Thats communism bud. At least in Lenin’s eyes.

Removing the state and letting corporations do whatever they want is libertarianism. Libertarians loooooove hierarchy. Their pissing and moaning usually comes from their frustration about not being at the top of it. The sure as **** d ont want to see the end of it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Lenin didn't remove the state, just put it in the hands of different people.

 

[tricknologist]

Moldbug is a neo feudalist.

If you think he represents libertarianism then .. well i can understand your angst but you are railing against the wrong thing.

My claim wasn't that Moldbug represents libertarianism. My claim was that he represents a strand of libertarian thought, which I made clear in the post. Ideologies are always made up of different strands and schools of thought that disagree with each other. Social liberals and neoliberals are different things, but they're still liberals.

The biggest threat to the open, enlightened, progressive nature of our society is neo feudalism and the so called "Libertarians" who support it are nothing of the sort. The idea that everything is private property and there are no commons is not a libertarian idea, its just an extension of the ideas that all relationships are essentially business relationships, all identity is essentially a brand and all communication is marketing.

Why is believing in a commons a necessary condition for being a libertarian? I've read a lot of right libertarian theorists (or maybe they're not true libertarians according to you) and that never factored into any of their core arguments. In my experience, right libertarian theorists are more concerned with minimal states, free markets, property rights, and the age of consent.

If you can't call something by its correct name then you can't identify it properly, and as a result can't react to it appropriately or control it where necessary. Because you don't know what it is you are reacting to. Its an old idea from esoteric thought across the world but its most obvious modern example is communication online.

I really don't like this argument. Concepts (especially philosophical concepts) don't have stable and fixed definitions where there's no room for disagreement. If they did, philosophers and social scientists wouldn't spend so much time quibbling over minor aspects of conceptual definitions. It seems like an overly convenient way to shut down discussion tbqh.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

[emoji6][emoji6][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]" data-quote="ferball" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Lenin didn't remove the state, just put it in the hands of different people.

Yep.

But his end point was when private business was gone, soon the state would follow, and we’d have communism.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[ferball]

Yep.

But his end point was when private business was gone, soon the state would follow, and we’d have communism.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Maybe... I haven't actually read that book he wrote so I couldn't say.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

He endorsed Trump and gets a paycheck from News ltd. Just another cucked corporate who is neck deep in the ‘establishment’.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Reducing the size of government and ending war are policies libertarians support. How is he getting a check from News limited?

 

[ferball]

My claim wasn't that Moldbug represents libertarianism. My claim was that he represents a strand of libertarian thought, which I made clear in the post. Ideologies are always made up of different strands and schools of thought that disagree with each other. Social liberals and neoliberals are different things, but they're still liberals.

Neo-feudalists and libertarians are not the same thing. They are polar opposites. IMO obviously.

Why is believing in a commons a necessary condition for being a libertarian? I've read a lot of right libertarian theorists (or maybe they're not true libertarians according to you) and that never factored into any of their core arguments. In my experience, right libertarian theorists are more concerned with minimal states, free markets, property rights, and the age of consent.

No they aren't. That's why "right libertarians" as you're describing them aren't really libertarians. Again this is only my opinion but I think you'll find its the only true and correct opinion.

Taxation isn't form of oppression. If you don't want to pay taxes build a boat and go do your sea-steading bullshit or whatever. Isolate yourself from the rest of the world and don't use the infrastructure or processes the rest of the world has built if you don't want to contribute to it.

Not everything can be private property. Who owns the gas in Australia? What about the rain or the air you breathe? The idea that someone could have ownership of those things is ludicrous and could only exist if they seized and held them by force. If you start seizing things by force you are no longer libertarian and respecting other potential property rights.

I really don't like this argument. Concepts (especially philosophical concepts) don't have stable and fixed definitions where there's no room for disagreement. If they did, philosophers and social scientists wouldn't spend so much time quibbling over minor aspects of conceptual definitions. It seems like an overly convenient way to shut down discussion tbqh.

Concepts are not the same as political ideologies. Concepts are ideas. They are abstract. Once a political ideology starts making changes in the world it moves beyond a simple (or very complex) abstract concept. It becomes a process that enacts change in the physical world. Its different because you can make some quantifiable assessment of the effects of the ideology on physical reality.

This already happening with neo-feudalism or techno-feudalism. Its why we are constantly taxed by non government entities thru the payment of licensing and subscription fees.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Or you could shoot them as they made their way out of their hotel because you lost a close relative to their penny pinching bullshit.

Yep