Libertarianism defined

Nykos provides the evidence for one of the things wrong with some who call themselves libertarians (or, in his case, their sympathizers): a misunderstanding (or complete ignorance) of history, as well as of representative government, despite any claim to the contrary.

Individualism = meme adapted for... the good of you, me, and each of us.

Because there is no historical way to verify this claim, it is as based on faith as any religion can be. For one who claims to understand evolution, Nykos has little understanding of how humans (and thus human societies) have evolved - not as loose gatherings of completely autonomous competing (and selfish) agents, but as groups of interdependent, cooperating individuals working for a common good. Yes, there is competition, but on the small scale, the survival of the individual often depended very much on the strength of the group. The difference in this dynamic from our prehistoric ancestors to now is the size of the group; whereas it once may have encompassed only a family, then a tribe, and so forth, now your group is at least your fellow nationals, and (in the view of many) every other human being on the planet. (I won't even begin to address the way in which societies have imposed and nurtured the concept of competition in order to perpetuate the worst aspects of the state that Nykos seems to be opposed to.)

"The State"/"Society" is interested only in its own self preservation and reproduction in as many minds as possible.

In a democratic form of government, l'estat c'est vous. "The government" is not a foreign entity unless you allow it to be. The state is you, and you are the state - because you've been given that Constitutional responsibility and authority (in the U.S.). If you don't like how you are governing, then by all means - make the changes you see fit.

The most selfish people out there are aware that they have to improve the lives of as many other people as possible if the[y] want to get money.

I would require evidence to back up this outlandish and unrealistic statement before I could address it, as it is inherently self-contradictory, like saying "God condemns sinners to hell, but he loves you."

Note that I'm an individualist, not a libertarian. While I am sympathetic to some if not most of their views, I think it is up to Science to tell us which is the most efficient form of government possible for the well-being of each of us.

If history, anthropology, and sociology are sciences, then libertarianism is not recommended.

@cimourdain:

Oh, indeed I do. A total lack of any sort of serious book learning, an utter absence of any concern for actual, real human life, and an unwillingness for anything but slavish repetition of the most shopworn bromides.

congratulations, you have just discovered the internet

Fair. Take it as you wish but expect the same from others. You are judged as writing in a very similar way to those who have been considered most definitely racist.

How about a word of proof to substantiate that claim?

""all Muslims are evil"

And I have said this - where?

You missed those previous exchanges. I was arguing about the doctrinal nature and practice, both now and historically, of Islam. Nothing I have said on that score has been refuted - no one has even tried to do that. Because they can't. Because I have my facts straight.

Being specific and saying that one thing, in this case their religion, is the cause is to paint all of a particular view as a result of the issues you have with a few - that is the route to racism

This is a non sequitur of truly staggering proportions. Racism is evil because people's character is not affected by their membership in a group of common descent. The melanin content of my skin doesn't affect my thinking or character in other words. However, human character is affected - in fact is made - by the contents of their heads. Of which religion is a major component. And Islam has a more fearful hold than most.

To say that judging people by their professed belief is racism is to abandon the meaning of language.

'm furrin' to many of the contributors - or are you actually defining furrin' with a racial overtone?

Granted, you can't see the rather lengthy exchanges I've had with other posters where I was told that a) Jihad genocide in Africa is irrelevant, and b) it's Africa - what do you expect? So, sorry, you don't know the context of those comments. But my hackles are up about this sort of thing.

hat's making the same point that KG made - saying you were born and bred in Africa doesn't tell me you are not a racist.

Read back this thread. You'll find that KG didn't make this point first - I did. In fact, I demanded that my ancestry be discounted. What happened was that KG and his drooling acolytes spent all their time calling me racist and then, when they found out about the place of my birth, dropped that, and now have reinstated their calls when I've called them on their bullshit. That's why I call them racist in their thinking.

I never suggested that a person from Africa can't be racist - that's a delusion of the condescending liberal idiots of the West. Read back over this thread, you'll see me being 100% consistent on this point.

What I do suggest is that my past has left me able to remember that the peoples of Africa are real, which is something that isn't remembered by too many. I have not, incidentally, accused many of racism on this board. Even in the case of KG & strange my case is that they were thinking in a racist manner, not that they were hardcore racists. My real accusation is that these twerps don't give a damn about the peoples in distant lands, that, in a very real way, they can't understand that they exist. Once again, I have quit a lot of evidence to back that accusation up. I could start with the fact that none of these riff-raff gave a damn when I brought up what was happening to the Sudanese Christians & Animists or to the non-Muslims of the subcontinent.

As regards environmentalists, read back the thread again. I was specific in drawing a distinction between environmentalists and conservationists. To be sure there are decent human beings who have been sucked into the environmentalist movement. Does that make the statements about environmentalists untrue? Of course not. There were decent human beings in the Nazi and Communist causes. Does that make it wrong to say "The Nazis/Communists were scum"?

As your own case, well, look again at what I wrote. Have you ever, in word and deed, opposed the export of GM food aid? Prevented industrialization of the Third World? Stopped them from using their resources? If so then you are complicit in immiseration and murder. It is that simple.

The single most important and useful thing that the West could do to help Africa is eliminate trade barriers. Do that and in two months you'd see improvements.

I doubt it. By far, most of the wealth from exploiting Africa's resources will go to the rich and powerful multinationals that have the means to develop these resources, and to the corrupt governments, not to the poor people in Africa. Sure, some of that revenue will trickle down to the general population, but nowhere near as fast as you seem to think. After all, any dollar spent in Africa means less profit, so they'll want to make sure to let as little money trickle into the African economy as possible.

That's not to say I'm in favor of trade restrictions like import taxes and export taxes. But merely lifting these restrictions isn't going to magically make poverty go down in a matter of months.

congratulations, you have just discovered the internet

...
That was beautiful, broboxley. I needed that! :)

ianmhor, my point is simple: if the likes of KG didn't want this trouble, they shouldn't have started it. And if you think my accusations are uncalled for, then you should aim similar criticisms at these fools.

Granted, you can't see the rather lengthy exchanges I've had with other posters where I was told that a) Jihad genocide in Africa is irrelevant, and b) it's Africa - what do you expect?

Links to these comments?

My real accusation is that these twerps don't give a damn about the peoples in distant lands, that, in a very real way, they can't understand that they exist. Once again, I have quit a lot of evidence to back that accusation up.

Then show it, and that way no-one can call you a liar.

Have you ever, in word and deed, opposed the export of GM food aid? Prevented industrialization of the Third World? Stopped them from using their resources? If so then you are complicit in immiseration and murder. It is that simple.

Your simplistic binary scenario lacks any sophisticated insight into any of those issues.

As long as you continue to polarise the world into those who are with you (although I cannot think that many would adopt your simplistic judgement) and those who are against you, then you will continue to make the same errors of judgement that you have shown time and again.

Not least of all, you make the mistake of thinking that resistance to new technologies and industrialisation comes only from external agents, and not from within developing countries themselves. By this error, you see imperialism and racism wherever you look.

"Participation in a government is not (or should not be), "I am a slave of the government for the good of everyone else," but "I am participating in a cooperative endeavor designed to serve the people, and I am a person, so I will be served thereby."

Well, I want to participate in a cooperative endeavor that provides better services for lower prices (healthcare or education, for example). Do I have the choice to do so? No, because the State has an unnatural monopoly (one that would probably not arise in a free market) that it keeps by means of coercion.

"Governments are made up of individuals."

Religions too.

Buddy, I got news for you... we are all, in myriad ways, dependent on each other. Since we don;t have any other choice but to work together, it's our moral duty to be responsible for the way we are governed.

We must work together with ALL other people on this planet. Unfortunately the genes of humans that placed the interest of their species before their own were probably removed from our species' gene pool, so we can be sure that we are all selfish to some extent. Why bury our heads in the sand and hypocritically pretend otherwise, instead of actually harnessing our built-in selfishness for the good of EVERYONE?

Humans are also adapted for living in tribes of no more than 100 people (the rest usually don't count for most of us, as exemplified by the environmentalists letting people starve rather than sending them GM-modified foods), and of course the people who happen to have good social connections with the leaders have an unfair advantage over the faceless masses. That's why an efficient gov't has to be a massively decentralized one, and the logical unit should of course be the individual. The Open Source community is a good example of such collective intelligence.

What we see instead are bigger and bigger governments, structured in hierarchical groups of people, that try to control everything - and of course some means of indoctrination will arrive sooner rather than later - because the political parties will conspire to maintain the status-quo of the State and indoctrinate people that there are no alternatives. Of course, people have gotten used to the benefits provided by other beneficial memes such as atheism (such as sleeping late on Sundays), so the (western) Gov'ts usually can't go too far towards totalitarianism without protests.

The best way to work with the whole 6 billion people on this planet? A free market/system that has progress built into it, in a similar way to natural selection, is probably the best way to do so. After all, natural selection applies to the progress of science as well: a theory is postulated, and it is maintained only if it is falsifiable and verified against reality through a reproducible experiment. And I think we all know what wonders science has provided to us all.

The best way to work with the whole 6 billion people on this planet? A free market/system that has progress built into it, in a similar way to natural selection, is probably the best way to do so.

What does this even mean?

After all, natural selection applies to the progress of science as well: a theory is postulated, and it is maintained only if it is falsifiable and verified against reality through a reproducible experiment. And I think we all know what wonders science has provided to us all.

Stop abusing the terminology. That is not natural selection.

I notice that our inbred molerats KG & strange have desperately tried to retrench after I've called them on their racist thinking. Too bad, as the eskimo said to the refrigerator salesman, "I ain't buying it!".

Homophobe Cimourdain, lying piece of racist trash, you need to present evidence of your claims.

What you've done so far is assert that if X number of days pass without me calling you a racist, then by the rules of Calvinball, I am now a racist.

This does not convince.

Stop abusing the terminology. That is not natural selection.

It is an evolutionary algorithm, then. You do know that they are commonly applied with great success in computer science, right? And if you disagree that scientific discovery doesn't happen as a result of selection for postulated theories that also correspond to reality, and the discarding of those that don't, then I suggest you carefully read the works of Karl Popper.

Nykos provides the evidence for one of the things wrong with some who call themselves libertarians (or, in his case, their sympathizers): a misunderstanding (or complete ignorance) of history, as well as of representative government, despite any claim to the contrary.
Individualism = meme adapted for... the good of you, me, and each of us.
Because there is no historical way to verify this claim, it is as based on faith as any religion can be.

You're right, there is no historical way to verify this claim FOR YOU... because to you history isn't a science in the first place.

If history, anthropology, and sociology are sciences, then libertarianism is not recommended.

The question "What is the best system of government for each of us?" is meaningful and has an answer. I thought science was the tool to use in order to answer things like that. Not to true believers apparently... be it in God or in the State.

The Inquisition would have also agreed that some truths should be left undiscovered.

Your simplistic binary scenario lacks any sophisticated insight into any of those issues.
As long as you continue to polarise the world into those who are with you (although I cannot think that many would adopt your simplistic judgement) and those who are against you, then you will continue to make the same errors of judgement that you have shown time and again.

If someone made a death threat against a member of your family, would you maintain your stance? Would you give them the benefit of the doubt and not automatically consider what they are doing as evil?

If something like this happened to you, I would under all circumstances qualify the act as evil.

And if you disagree that scientific discovery doesn't happen as a result of selection for postulated theories that also correspond to reality, and the discarding of those that don't, then I suggest you carefully read the works of Karl Popper.

I know how science works; I'm a scientist. Still, what you were describing is not natural selection, and doesn't really work like natural selection. Natural selection acts upon variations in populations. Clearly, the scientific process is not simply reliant upon the generation of variation in theories. It is a much more guided methodology, based upon hypothesis, testing, and refinement.

Anyway, the worst part of your post was that bit about the freemarket with natural selection. Where it not for that bit, I would have just ignored your faulty analogy.

If someone made a death threat against a member of your family, would you maintain your stance? Would you give them the benefit of the doubt and not automatically consider what they are doing as evil?

If something like this happened to you, I would under all circumstances qualify the act as evil.

What?

Anyway, the worst part of your post was that bit about the freemarket with natural selection. Where it not for that bit, I would have just ignored your faulty analogy.

Well OK, let's call it artificial selection. And you are definitely right in the sense that memes such as new scientific hypotheses are usually generated in a way that doesn't depend on existing theories. But there definitely is variation. Some hypotheses are true, while others are not. Some add unnecessary and hard-to-explain complications to existing explanations ("God created life on Earth in a way that is indistinguishable from Darwinian evolution"), while others are as simple as they can be.

So there is this incremental "improvement" of theories over time, as nature is better observed and understood. That's the kind of incremental progress I'd like to see in the economic and political systems. In science, rival hypotheses compete with one other and the better one wins. In politics, government doesn't compete with anyone when it comes to healthcare, education, etc. - and we can expect it to pretty much stagnate as a result of that.

Though as others pointed out, I'm very skeptical that defense and scientific research can work according to market rules only. But I see no reason for things like education, healthcare, law enforcement, etc, not to. But if the libertarian way proves suboptimal in any of those domains, I'd have no issue in keeping the current system. But the problem is, these alternative, potentially better ways of doing things aren't even tried experimentally.

You're right, there is no historical way to verify this claim FOR YOU... because to you history isn't a science in the first place.

My degree, teaching credentials and experience, and major focus of study during the last twenty-five years has been history. I know that the scientific method works very well in scrutinizing history, particularly as regards supporting evidence - for which you haven't really provided, oh, ANY.

The question "What is the best system of government for each all of us?" is meaningful and has an answer.

Corrected to make the question actually meaningful.

I thought science was the tool to use in order to answer things like that. Not to true believers apparently... be it in God or in the State or in free markets.

Corrected for accuracy.

@badgersdaughter #497:
So you're pretty much confirming that "liberal" can't or shouldn't be used because it reeks of "communism" nowadays.

However, I'm still not convinced of the usefulness of the word "libertarian" once you've taken out the free-market absolutism. Without it, what is left that uniquely sets libertarianism apart from liberalism?

And besides, libertarianism is quickly starting to collect a set of bad connotations of its own (as evident in this thread). So why still use it?

I find it even more puzzling why you appear to accept a definition of "libertarianism" that is so broad that it could include a "centrist liberal" and Joe the Plumber (except that one is "left-leaning" and the other "right-wing"). Doesn't such a broad definition make the term all but meaningless as well?

On top of that, wouldn't it also make "left-wing" and "right-wing" much more important qualifiers than "libertarian", if that's what distinguishes a "centrist liberal" from Joe the Plumber? Despite the fact that most libertarianism supposedly is an attempt to get rid of the "left-right" dichotomy?

So there is this incremental "improvement" of theories over time, as nature is better observed and understood. That's the kind of incremental progress I'd like to see in the economic and political systems.

Ah well, in that case I think that all you're calling for is the abandonment of dogmatic economic theory and practice, and there is no argument there. The introduction of evidence-based practice and parsimonius review could only improve economic and political practice - of course, I'm sure that economists and politicians would argue that they already do these things.

I see no reason for things like education, healthcare, law enforcement, etc, not to...

Two-tier education systems, inequality in healthcare provision where free markets exists, and rich-men's justice all say that free markets don't work properly for these things.

Doesn't such a broad definition make the term all but meaningless...

Yes, precisely.

...most libertarianism supposedly is an attempt to get rid of the "left-right" dichotomy...

Well, supposed by most libertarians, anyway. They would like to believe they are something that transcends traditional left/right ideas, but they're simply an amalgam of both with a few extra refinements. To the extent you can define such a moving target at all, that is.

Without [free-market absolutism], what is left that uniquely sets libertarianism apart from liberalism?

Good question. Let me think about this... Most Libertarians appear to believe that liberalism is about entitlements and over-entanglement in government, and that libertarianism is about individual responsibilities (as if individuals could really live their lives independently of the government, or as if private entrepreneurship were the only way to participate in commercial activities). Libertarians tend to reify "the State" or "the collective" while paradoxically believing that there is not really any such thing as a collective, i.e. what appears to be a collective is in fact the statistical aggregate of the often contradictory actions of individuals. Liberals appear to believe there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure how exactly to define it. I'm still new at that angle.

@badgersdaughter in #520:

Most Libertarians appear to believe that liberalism is about entitlements and over-entanglement in government

Which suggests to me that these libertarians got their ideas of what "liberalism" is supposed to be from conservatives, not from liberals or progressives. Which is an interesting observation in its own right, really.

@Kagehi: how very white of you, a couple of links...

I didn't say "all" American Indians are the same. In the same tribe that caused those of us living, literally, ***on the other side of the street*** from the local reservation, there was one family who built a house, took care of it, had a good job, and didn't take any more government money than they had to, if any. But, that was ***one*** out of probably 30 families. Its human nature that, if you don't have to do anything to survive, and someone once wronged you, some percentage of idiots will spend there lives, and teach their kids to spend their lives, whining about the horrible people that did it, while taking every dime they can get from the same people. This isn't productive, useful, or helpful, even to the fools doing it.

Sure, you are likely to find exceptions. By a stand by the claim that they would all be better off if their land wasn't "held in trust", and they bloody had to do something with it. That some idiots use this as a means to continue to rob you is yet **another** reason why its fracking stupid. If you owned it, not the government, do you honestly think the government could get by with finding a way to steal its resources, without you being able to do anything about it? It sure would be a lot harder... But, no. The cons, liars and assholes want it to continue, because they *can* get by with that sort of thing, and the rest imagine it should continue because its, "protecting it for the poor Indians." The later are idiots, and the former would have heart attacks, if enough of you said, "OK, give it bloody back, you don't need to keep it *for* us any more." So... Why is it that almost none of the tribes are doing that exactly?

Your claim that I am being racist for pointing this out is about as dumb as if I suggested Germans mostly drink Lager, and you whined that this is stupid, some of them don't drink at all. That isn't the damn point. Show me some statistics that indicate, in any way, that, for the majority, I am incorrect. I will change my opinion, or the majority, immediately. But, pulling up something from your own tribe, which happens to be in the, as far as I can see, minority, whose *entire* membership, tries to engage with the modern world, doesn't do much for me.

Not owning your land limits your options, presents options that are not always good at maintaining tribal identity (ask the ones that don't want casinos about that), and makes it easier to the unscrupulous, as you have noted, to find ways to screw you over. Am I wrong about any of that?

Hey, Kagehi... if we called the remnants of the people on the occupied land, oh, let's say, "Saxons," and the invaders, say, "Normans," all of a sudden the resistance of the remnants becomes heroic and their surliness an estimable refusal to submit to injustice.

Yeah, because 100 years after the fact it would be terribly heroic for which ever one lost to start the whole damn thing up again over trivial bullshit. Was two young to know much about what caused the whole BS, but given what I **did** see going on later in life, it was probably a heroic uprising over jail time for DUI, or not being allowed to mistreat their animals (including the one cat that ended up adopting us for about a year, before undetected injuries, which the vet figured had been caused by being kicked across the room, killed him). You live across from this specific tribe for 15 years, then come back and tell me how they are just "fighting the good fight against the **descendents** of invaders. Oh, wait, no.. That isn't even right, because 100% of my family moved here well after all the BS that started this. How about they just shoot you, instead. Your ancestors where here back then, right?

At some point, enough is enough. This state of affairs isn't doing them any favors. If anything, its continuing to rob them, and slowly wiping what is left out. In a few hundred more we will be "holding" land for people that either don't exist at all, in many cases, or have so little original American Indian in them that *I* could almost qualify. Even the Saxons and Normans eventually stopped pissing on each other over past injuries.

Then show it, and that way no-one can call you a liar.

Well, Bernard, here are a few examples. A while back I pointed out that belief in the UN as an international mediator meant sanctioning every genocidal lunatic to come crawling out of the woodwork. None of my facts, nor my reasoning was challenged - that was all treated as irrelevant. Then, when we got into an argument about environmentalism the first time, I pointed out what restricting fossil fuel technology means for the Third World. Again, unchallenged, but that didn't make a difference. When we were discussing the Sudanese genocides (plural) I pointed out that these were textbook jihad, and that all the classic texts support it. Case ignored again (several times). I mentioned my Sudanese friends who have survived that horror. Case ignored. A while back, KG made one of his ignorant swipes at "demonizing Communism", and I pointed out that a survivor of Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia might not consider attacks on Communism as "demonization". Case ignored again. Etc. Believe me, I could go on like this.

None of these are minor examples that I brought up - they all pertain to seriously major horrors. They were all dismissed point blank. Now, there is one attitude that cannot be held by those who act like this and that is one of honest concern for humanity. Even if an honest person did not know, say, about the jihad imperative involved in the Sudanese genocides, he'd feel compelled to do some reading of his own on these matters. The fact is that these people don't, and won't. Which means that they cannot have anything like an honest concern for the people of distant lands. Which leaves two possibilities, and as I do not believe that they are open supporters of horror (that'd take more spine than they have), the answer is that they simply don't care. That's the only logical conclusion. Unlimited slaughter, slavery, genocide - whatever, as long as they can continue to mouth their empty slogans.

You've ever wondered how the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Maos got away with what they did? It's because of people like this.

You go on to accuse me of simplicity. Well, it is that simple. That's the other mark of the solipsistic pseudointellectual. One thing that my childhood taught me is that when the stakes are life and death, then things are very simple indeed.

By this error, you see imperialism and racism wherever you look.

I repeat, Bernard, you'd be far better directing this comment at fools like KG. As I say, I don't think that, for all his tendencies to employ racist thinking, he is a racist. I simply think he's a solipsist who neither knows nor cares anything about the lands beyond his shores. I don't know when I've accused someone of imperialism - heck, I'm in favor of some oldschool Imperial justice to be rained down on, say, the Janjaweed and the Interahamwe. But that's too much for these ninnies. The cold truth is that even old Kipling's "White Man's Burden" shows a greater respect for and compassion towards the wretched of the earth than this lot are capable of.

Not least of all, you make the mistake of thinking that resistance to new technologies and industrialisation comes only from external agents, and not from within developing countries themselves

Actually, I didn't; that's why I referred to the foreign aid racket. I agree with Dambisa Moyo who has called for trade liberalization and a five year phasing out of foreign aid.

@Kagehi: hey I wasnt the one who posted the only thing they build is casinos.
I pointed out that you were wrong there. Now here is another clue by 4

I think it is, of the American Indians use their land to make any real money, and its all from casinos

is what you said, I gave you links to prove that you are a bigot and your response was laughable.

The tribes spend a lot of time and money in federal court to get control of their own land and resources but white folk see an Indian making a buck they get angry and find ways to steal that dollar.

http://www.google.com/search?q=indian+lawsuits&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&r…

go back to sleep in your ignorance and pretend the slums in the american cities and the extreme poverty in Appalachia and other rural areas is all caused by lazy folk getting government handouts.

Bernard, if you want an almost parodic example of this uncaring attitude, consider the following: when some people were facing death for apostasy in Iran, KG went out of his way to pretend that apostasy isn't being punished by death in this case, and that knowledge of Islamic law is irrelevant to an Islamic case being tried in an Islamic republic.

Actually, I was also arguing that those poor sods hadn't necessarily been charged with apostasy, but had actually (as Amnesty International claimed) been charged with Enmity against God due to their involvement in opposition to the regime. The argument certainly wasn't that their deaths were in any way justified.

Knockgoats became a target for your scattershot vitriol, as did I. It seems that you perceive any attempt to clarrify factual claims to be callous disregard for the victims of various injustices. This is simply not the case.

As in this case, you assume that becuase people don't agree with you, then they must necessarily not care for the victims.

Still learning,

Robert

Robert, aren't we (hopefully) *all* still learning?

Why do you ask for examples, Bernard, if you are quick to provide one yourself? I notice that you have not challenged any of my previous examples at all, nor have you yet established any basis for this ridiculous p.o.v. that an understanding of Islam's doctrines is irrelevant to understanding Islam's operations.

Nor have you answered why you are quick to condemn me when I accuse KG & his kind, but are completely silent when they accuse me. Though I think I can guess. When something like strange, let's say, calls me a "racist" he might as well be calling me the fibonnaci sequence or Rajatarangini. It's completely meaningless; there's not even the shadow of an objective connotation attached to the words.

When I, however, call him & KG on what can only be a racist manner of thinking, I have the evidence and I have the reason. That's why my comments sting: they're accurate. His are not even wrong.

Posted by: Cimourdain | February 15, 2010 6:46 PM

theomaniac, you're wasting you're fingertips hoping for reason from this lot. You're confronting the vast herd of independent minds. Listen to them grunt. You really think any of them is going to stop chewing their prefabricated cud to think about what you say?

If this is how you feel, why waste your time and obvious superior talents on the likes of us?

No one would blame you if you just decided to fuck off out of here and spend your time enlightening those who appreciate your efforts and will recognize and bow down to your obvious superiority.

Boy, that sure would show us up for the unwashed and ignorant peasants we are, that we ran off such an obviously supreme entity.

We should bow our heads in shame that we are not kissing your ass the way we should while we have the chance.

when some people were facing death for apostasy in Iran, KG went out of his way to pretend that apostasy isn't being punished by death in this case - Cimourdain

Thanks Cimourdain, I thought that on coming back to this thread I might need to search for an example of your lies - but here's one waiting for me. As Bernard Bumner says, and as many will remember, that was not what I was arguing. I was pointing out, correctly, that they had not been charged with apostasy. It's because you're such a shameless and persistent liar that I don't take anything you say at face value.

A while back, KG made one of his ignorant swipes at "demonizing Communism"

Link to such a statement if you can. Those are not words I can imagine using. Anyone who's been around here long will remember me chewing out Maoist morons from the "Revolutionary Communist Party".

The melanin content of my skin doesn't affect my thinking or character in other words.

That would be true in a society where racial prejudice was non-existent. In the real world, it's ludicrous: skin colour affects the experiences you will have in every society, which affect your thinking and character.

What happened was that KG and his drooling acolytes spent all their time calling me racist and then, when they found out about the place of my birth

I had no knowledge you claim to have been born in Africa until this thread, fuckwit. I see strange gods before me has no memory of this claim prior to this thread, either. Point us to where you made it first.

My real accusation is that these twerps don't give a damn about the peoples in distant lands, that, in a very real way, they can't understand that they exist.

I was in squatter camps around Durban, and saw the scarely less extreme poverty in rural kwa-Zulu Natal, while working as a freelance journalist in 1991, arsehole. A low-level civil war was going on at the time. I also wrote of the wrong being done to the people of Maputaland in the name of conservation of the swamp forests.

I could start with the fact that none of these riff-raff gave a damn when I brought up what was happening to the Sudanese Christians & Animists or to the non-Muslims of the subcontinent.

Another brazen lie. Link to the relevant places, liar.

I pointed out what restricting fossil fuel technology means for the Third World. Again, unchallenged, but that didn't make a difference.

More lies. It was pointed out to Cimourdain that it was poor countries that would suffer first and most from climate change; and emphasised that it was the rich ones that used most of the fossil fuels and should cut back drastically, while transferring renewable energy technologies to the poor ones to enable them to grow without great in creases in their fossil fuel use.

When we were discussing the Sudanese genocides (plural) I pointed out that these were textbook jihad, and that all the classic texts support it.

Except that in Darfur (although not in southern Sudan), the victims as well as the perpetrators are Muslims.

A while back I pointed out that belief in the UN as an international mediator meant sanctioning every genocidal lunatic to come crawling out of the woodwork.

And this was such fucking ridiculous hyperbole that of course no-one took you seriously. If you'd limited yourself to accusing the UN of very serious failings, and UN troops of serious crimes, I'd have agreed with you. But the more complex truth that sometimes it has done good and sometimes evil won't do for a lying far-right ideologue like you.

Believe me, I could go on like this.

Oh, that's one thing you've said that I do believe. You can go on lying indefinitely. Everyone else will notice that you have not provided a single link justifying the accusations he has made.

Tomorrow I hope to have time for something more worthwhile than scum like Hyperon and Cimourdain.

Two-tier education systems, inequality in healthcare provision where free markets exists, and rich-men's justice all say that free markets don't work properly for these things.

And I'm supposed to just believe you that the state will magically provide equality for all its citizens, including the people running it from within the government and powerful lobby groups that influence the leaders? Don't make me laugh.

I know that the scientific method works very well in scrutinizing history, particularly as regards supporting evidence - for which you haven't really provided, oh, ANY.

If anyone, it is you who should provide evidence that a system infringing on people's liberties rather than promoting them is better than the alternatives.

I don't have to waste my working time making up for your lack of knowledge. It would almost certainly be just like trying to convince a Muslim that Allah doesn't exist. I would have to summarize evolutionary psychology, meme theory, basic economics, game theory and quite possibly other sciences to convince you and I sadly don't have time for that.

If anyone, it is you who should provide evidence that a system infringing on people's liberties ability to run roughshod over the human rights of their fellow citizens in the name of free enterprise and to ignore the suffering of these same fellow citizens in the name of economic liberty rather than promoting them is better than the alternatives.

Corrected for the real consequences of a libertarian philosophy. See, we've tried a more "libertarian" way of running things, back around the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. If it hadn't been for government intervention (on the part of business in some cases, in response to public pressure in others), national mythology, and the coercive efforts of the wealthy classes, the whole rotten capitalist edifice would have faced revolutionary action long ago.

I don't have to waste my working time making up for your lack of knowledge.

Pray, what knowledge is this? Theoretical bullshit, I'm sure, since I'm talking history, and you're talking...

evolutionary psychology, meme theory, basic economics, game theory and quite possibly other sciences

...which to me are less meaningful than what actually happens and has happened in the real world, you arrogant blowhard.

evolutionary psychology, meme theory, basic economics, game theory and quite possibly other sciences

This sounds like a massive category error

Not that Knockgoats needs the likes of me to defend him, but I hate not providing context for claims. Anyone that is interested can see the exchange with Cimourdain about the apostasy case here (disclosure: I was participating in the argument as well). Knockgoats' opening comment that set Cimourdain off:

I signed the petition to Ban Ki-moon, and apostasy from Islam is indeed punishable by death in some Islamic countries including Iran, but I see no evidence at all that these planned executions are for apostasy, let alone atheism. "Enmity against God" is just the Iranian theocracy's equivalent of "Counter-revolutionary activities" in Stalin's USSR: it just means opposition to the regime.

Cimourdain kept insisting that his vast knowledge of Iranian law somehow altered the facts of the case, where not even Amnesty International held that the men to be executed were being prosecuted for any sort of thoughtcrime or religious belief. It was all about opposition (armed at times) against the regime in power.

Cimourdain is a bald-faced liar, as he's proved yet again here, and does not deserve anyone's time or attention.

Lonely Looneytarian #476

Do you at least acknowledge that, because of the profit motive, private businesses have a greater incentive to be efficient than elected representatives?

Not only no but fuck no. In 2008 the folks at AIG were looking at short term profits. AIG sold credit default swaps (CDSs) on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which had by the time of receipt declined in value by as much as 33% and which there was a reasonable expectation they would decline. That is not efficient.

I notice you don't answer my transparency argument. Is it because you know you don't actually have an answer? That would be my guess.

Believe it or not, economists look at actual, quantitative data to build their models and determine how economically efficient markets and government programs are.

Believe it or not I am an economist. You might read my post #440 where I criticize the Austrian School for rejecting models.

If you want me to believe the opposite of what most of the experts believe, at least show me where I can find some peer-reviewed evidence that supports your claim.

Thank you for showing ONCE AGAIN that looneytarians are economic illiterates. My contention that government is no more inefficient than business is what most of the experts believe. Now the Mises Institute and the Cato boys may not believe it, but the majority of economists do. I could offer a couple of journal articles. Do you have access to a college library? That's where you're most likely to find them.

Lonely Looneytarian #468

I think we both would agree that Gramm-Leech Bliley was a mistake, but suggesting that the financial crisis was purely a result of deregulation indicates that you're either woefully uninformed or willing to twist facts to support your worldview. [emphasis added]

Purely the result of deregulation? Of course not. I wouldn't make such a silly argument. It's only folks like economically illiterate looneytarians who try to describe the present financial crisis in such simplistic terms. And I'm glad you recognize the folly of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.* So few of your fellow looneytarians do.

*I resigned from the Treasury Department after losing an argument with Larry Summers about Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Recently I had the opportunity to tell Summers,** "I fucking told you so." Yes, I put it exactly that way.

**No, I am not Kw*k.

Recently I had the opportunity to tell Summers,** "I fucking told you so." Yes, I put it exactly that way.

*clenched tentacle salute*

*clenched tentacle salute*

Amen Brother and Sister.

I see my post #465 still is stands. Talk about clueless...

I pointed out that you were wrong there. Now here is another clue by 4

I think it is, of the American Indians use their land to make any real money, and its all from casinos

is what you said, I gave you links to prove that you are a bigot and your response was laughable.

No, you read an **admittedly** badly worded part of one sentence to say what you wanted to hear, then extrapolated from that, as evidenced from the fact that you fail to bother to quote the rest of the sentence, which clearly states that is a ***small number*** of tribes that own the casinos. Go work for the Discovery Institute if you can't avoid quote mining me.

@Kagehi: post 541 so without the quotes, your earlier posts was that Indians were a bunch of benefit seeking losers that only a few built casinos to make a few dollars and they should all quit complaining about how their shit was stole.
Hey, you and your have tried to kill us since 1492 and get pissed that we wont turn white or assimilate so you can pretend it didnt happen.
Pull yer own pud pal you aint pullin mine.
we want your tools but not your culture. Fuck you very much.

As far as blood quantum goes, why do only white people get to decide who is Indian?

Recently I had the opportunity to tell Summers,** "I fucking told you so." Yes, I put it exactly that way.

Win!

Paul@536,
Thanks very much for finding that exchange!

I used the ScienceBlogs search facility for the phrase "demonizing Communism", which Cimourdain claimed I used - and he quoted it, so his claim was clearly that I used those exact words. I have no memory of doing so, it doesn't "ring true" to me as something I would say even if (for example) I was objecting to a claim that all Communist regimes are without any redeeming feature and worse than Nazi Germany, and, whaddya know, the search turns up not a single example. What I did say, on the "Apostasy" thread Paul links to, is:

"Turning Muslims into the new bogeymen is unhelpful and short-sighted. I can see absolutely no difference between the demonisation of Muslims now and that of Communists during the Cold War."

Rather different, no? What I was referring to is, quite obviously, the attribution of guilt for the crimes of tyrannical regimes such as those of Stalin and Mao to every Communist and their persecution by McCarthyism, just as I object to the attribution of guilt for the crimes of Al Qaeda and their ilk to every Muslim. This does not imply, except to dishonest scumbags like Cimourdain, that I approve of either Communism or Islam: I detest both, but I do not hate their adherents. But Cimourdain, as repeatedly shown, is a shameless liar - and not even a convincing one - as well as a champion of hate.

mnphenow,

If you're still around, I'll answer those of your points where I have anything new to say (others, particularly 'Tis Himself, have largely dealt with your ludicrous pseudo-economics), later today or at the weekend. It will be a real relief to turn from a lying scumbag like Cimourdain to argue with someone who appears to be on the whole well-meaning, if dangerously naive.

To answer a personal query now, a large part of my job is designing, coding, using and publishing on computational models of complex systems including human actors.

Cimourdain:

Well, I came back to this thread last night to have a look at your response and before I could start a long reply a power cut sent me early to bed. Good thing too - saved me a lot of typing as the thread since then shows you ain't listening.

So just a few words. Stop modifying evidence to fit your ideology. It might be an unconscious thing with you but do it and you will rightly be called a liar. Even better start your thinking from the evidence not from the ideology that way you might just learn something. And, yes, for heaven's sake if you are going to make a stand on ideology and are asked for evidence then provide it. That's how this blog operates and if you don't like that go elsewhere.

iannmhor,

Stop modifying evidence to fit your ideology.

And I have done this - where? Once again, you are making claims that you cannot substantiate. Nor do you criticize people like KG who sedulously ignore all evidence that doesn't fit them.

But thank you for your advice, Here's mine to you: first, actually learn something about issues such as environmentalism and Islam. I make it a point of principle to read works that disagree with me, you might do the same. Secondly, provide some evidence for accusations. Third, provide some measure of reason and evidence in your arguments. Fourth, try actually engaging with facts and evidence that are provided instead of simply skipping over them.

Who knows? You might learn something too.

Let me give you an example of how it's done. When I accuse KG of being an ignoramus, an apologist for genocide doctrine, and utterly uncaring about the world beyond his shores, I can substantiate it. Take this:

Except that in Darfur (although not in southern Sudan), the victims as well as the perpetrators are Muslims.

Now, here's what's wrong with this:

1. I have, repeatedly, referred to the genocides, plural, of the Sudan. The first of these that I referred to was the murder of two million animists and Christians. I have mentioned this several times before, but note that KG treats it as though it didn't happen, and is utterly irrelevant because it does not fit his worldview.

2. To claim that the most recent genocide in Darfur is not a case of Jihad, you need to ignore the fact that Islam has always been a vessel of Arab supremacism. Now, I've mentioned this several times, and an honest person who took the time to look into this, would know this basic fact. That KG does not, speaks volumes about his character.

So that, ian, is how one argues logically, with reference to evidence. Now compare this with the petulant tirades of the likes of KG. If you want to see the basis for the rest of my points, simply google my moniker on this blog and you'll find the substance of my remarks.

f you are going to make a stand on ideology and are asked for evidence then provide it. That's how this blog operates

It doesn't. It really doesn't. At first I repeatedly asked and challenged certain riff-raff to provide some evidence - they provided none. They didn't even try to. They threw temper-tantrums, imputed base motives and all the rest of it. They never provided evidence. Now they're whining when I turn the tables on them, and do it better than they ever could. Well, tough.

Cimourdain, I'm sure if you keep repeating yourself you'll eventually convince yourself (if nobody else) that you're brave and right. Have fun with that.

You might note that the sentence you quote from KG doesn't justify any of the claims you make; if you were less spittle-flecked you would perceive that.

Just in passing, the claim "Islam has always been a vessel of Arab supremacism" is wrong, as such universal ahistorical claims almost always are, and implies that you're unaware that the Persians, for example, are not Arabs, or that Indonesia, with the world's largest Muslim population, is a bit short of Arabs. Your "basic fact" isn't either. If you dialled it back to something like "Islam in Africa, for example, has frequently been a vessel of Arab supremacism" you'd be on slightly firmer ground, but that would require you to be capable of nuance and rational thought.

Hey, you and your have tried to kill us since 1492 and get pissed that we wont turn white or assimilate so you can pretend it didnt happen.

Given that I have already said that none of my relatives moved here until much later, fuck you too. Why do you have the right to define everyone that isn't American Indian as some sort of would be mass murderer?

Here is a hint for you. There was not Indian *nation*. It was hundreds of tribes, each with their own rules, mythologies, wars, prejudices, long standing feuds, and differences of opinion on whether or not it was OK to burn fields, forests, etc., if the local tribe found doing so useful. The nobel savage was a myth, and that your tribe isn't like the one I knew means **jack** with respect to the one I knew. It also means jack with respect to what any other tribes may be doing. You might as well be Swiss arguing that all Europeans are neutral and make chocolate and multipurpose knives, based solely on your own country.

Could I be wrong about how many take your, "We want the tools, but not the society.", and turn it into an excuse to do *nothing* at all, including teaching the very thing they complain is being "lost" because of non-Indians. Its not, its being lost because no one is bloody teaching it, or the younger generation isn't listening. You can continue to blame *everything* on assholes that showed up 100 years before my ancestors ever set foot on the continent, and lump me in with them, if you prefer, but doing so just makes you **precisely** the sort of asshole that prejudiced me against you in the first place. Because, there is no difference to me between the idiot that tried to throw a very large rock at me for walking "past" their field, on a public road, and you, blaming me, my ancestors, and everyone else that doesn't have some specific generic markers, for every problem you imagine you have at the moment.

You think it would have been different without settlers? Maybe you should read some history from your own damn tribe, with respect to all the shit different tribes pulled on each other, then add some modern anything into that equation, and see where it ends up. At this point, I don't give a crap. Legitimate gripes or not, most of your tirade is based on the same thing you accuse me of, assuming that everyone in the other group doesn't give a shit about your "people", and where all, somehow, involved in the whole thing, even the ones whose countries of origin where neither British, Spanish, or anything else that started the whole damn mess.

And I'm supposed to just believe you that the state will magically provide equality for all its citizens, including the people running it from within the government and powerful lobby groups that influence the leaders? Don't make me laugh.

Some states do it very well, notably the happiest nations with the highest standards of living, others don't do it well. There is no good argument that state is necessarily bad.

You picked poor examples for things that free markets do well, because the happiest, healthiest nations do all of those things via state provision.

Don't trust me. Go away and look at the evidence.

@Kagehi:

Could I be wrong about how many take your, "We want the tools, but not the society.", and turn it into an excuse to do *nothing* at all, including teaching the very thing they complain is being "lost" because of non-Indians. Its not, its being lost because no one is bloody teaching it, or the younger generation isn't listening.

or the dominant society blocks the teaching at every turn not always actively

but doing so just makes you **precisely** the sort of asshole that prejudiced me against you in the first place.

well you are decent enough to admit that you are not a regular asshole but a prejuidiced asshole. Care to mention the tribe specifically? or at least city and state? As for your ancestors coming later to America, does that mean a fellow with a green card dated 2010 does not have to recognise or be responsible for treaties signed in 1977? if so qussaqs shouldnt be trusted with anything, Oh I forgot thats what the rest of the world thinks of us already

Hey, folks, here's something new to look at. I was previously unaware of this thing called "libertarian socialism." Those of you who asked me about "left libertarianism" (and those who are simply interested) may find this viewpoint, and its late proponent, and maybe even the blog itself, intriguing.

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/02/colin-ward-pioneer-of-mutualism.html

Stephen, you excel yourself - multiple accusations, with little evidence, and the little that is presented is wrong. If you can seriously doubt that Islam has always been a vessel for Arab supremacism, then you haven't read, say, V.S. Naipul, or K.S. Lal, or Andre Servier or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or... Oh, where do I stop? Have you never noticed that the Islamized nations loose their connection to their original culture, that that culture is systematically stamped out in favor of the Arab culture of the seventh century?

And your previous assertion, to whit:

You might note that the sentence you quote from KG doesn't justify any of the claims you make;

Not a word of evidence, not a line of argument. A blind, meaningless assertion.

Paiute, Bishop, CA, and sure as hell someone that moves to a place a century after the fact isn't bloody responsible. That is the same stupid thinking that has, pretty much, continually perpetuated every bloody long lasting war in civilization, both the endless ones between Indian tribes, the endless one you seem to be fighting here, and the endless one between religious idiots among Christians and Muslims, which both want to "save" the land from each other, never mind that the patch most of them are on now never bloody belonged to them to start with. We are supposed to be trying to fracking grow up. And part of that is recognizing that, yes, some of the idiots in our past where uncivilized idiots, both the ones with, and without, huge technological skills. Oddly, all I ever hear from advocates for American Indian views is a nice long mess of, "Our ways where so much better, before you got here.", which isn't much different that certain faith heads that cherry pick the bits of their mythology to claim that their religion has never been about war, murder, rape, or genocide, but them other people over there...

http://www.powwows.com/gathering/native-issues/26894-hate-crime-shocks-…

Shock, fear and anger rocked the Bishop Paiute reservation recently when letters left at the tribe's education complex threatened to ''kidnap, rape and dismember'' young Paiute girls, aged 5 to 9.

yup, not much love lost there. Lets see what the fuss is about

Moreover, a number of serious incidents of police misconduct by County law
enforcement officers have occurred in the last few years. We filed a detailed written
complaint with the County Sheriff’s Department and the Attorney General of California
over a year ago documenting a pattern and practice of repeated harassment of one of
our tribal members by County law enforcement personnel, both on and off the
Reservation. That complaint also documented two separate incidents of sexual
harassment of young women tribal members by County law enforcement officers.
Although the Sheriff’s Department should have at least initiated an internal investigation
of these serious incidents, we have heard nothing whatever back from the County.

yup, guess if I lived there I would have thrown rocks at you as well :-)

Cimourdain, try to grasp that the claim "Z has always been a vessel for X" is falsified by any instance at all of Z not being a vessel for X. Capisce?

Dance for our amusement.

Shock, fear and anger rocked the Bishop Paiute reservation recently when letters left at the tribe's education complex threatened to ''kidnap, rape and dismember'' young Paiute girls, aged 5 to 9.

The rock incident was in or around 1985, the threats to attack the rest of the town some time in the 1970s. In other words, nice job pulling something from fairly recently, probably done by someone that wasn't even on the force at the time, as evidence of there being a reason for them to act that way. What next, you going to dig up some similar event, by a cop, in the last 5 years, in some other city, and conclude that decades of gang violence was, "An obvious counter to stuff being done to gang members by everyone not living in the nearest Latino, African American, or some other group."?

I know why you are pissed at white people, you *think* you know why I don't trust certain American Indians. You are wrong, as referenced by the only thing you bothered to come up with, but you think you know. As I said, the information I have seen implies that, while some get jobs outside the reservation, and probably more and more are doing so, there was a trend for a lot of them to **not** do that. There was also a trend for financial solutions to not involve becoming plumbers, or the like, and so on. Are some tribes exceptions? Yes, a lot of them are. But you are lumping 1,000 different teachings, 1,000 different feuds and ideas, 1,000 different concepts of how to live *with* the world, all of them contradictory, into the term "American Indian". So, and I admit this was stupid of me, did I, in a negative sense. But, this is too simplistic. What isn't simplistic is that, for a time, 90% of Indian casinos where owned, in one fashion or another, by **one tribe**, and that one of the biggest problems some tribes have run into with this is that they let the other tribe in to help them make money, and got exploited by them too. I.e., they fell for the same BS you try to propose, that all tribes get along, and they wouldn't ever turn on each other, in the face of some "other" enemy.

I will admit I over reacted. How about you look a bit harder, and not just hunting for articles on things non-American Indians have, or are imagined to have, done to American Indians. We can both improve our blind spot that way. But, I am done with this conversation. Both of us are making assumptions that are not founded on direct facts, and that just leads to more bullshit.

@Kagehi: you admit that you were young intimidated and over reacted. I appreciate that. My links wasnt about "what has happened lately" you were probably at the time not aware that the repression from the whites in your day was just as bad as the examples I linked to. Why were the young people wanting to attack the town? Just for grins or was there a grievance?
As for Indians all being different, thats true. Yupik kids refer to the Dineh as athabastards, due to friction in boarding schools over dating mostly. The thing is Indians, amd other aboriginals like being aboriginals. They dont like deeded property to be stolen from them because latecomers say those deeds dont count any more. The would like to become plumbers and carpenters but get tired of hearing "we only hire yupiks if they where really short skirts and use ladders" then the same people go to court/congress to protest Indian Hiring/Bidding Preference laws. Im not mad at whites, just get impatient with folks who use the freebee lazy indian rant. As for casinos its interesting that the christian right made big bucks from indian casinos to stop other Indian casinos.
Tribes will band together against the outside world and still happily engange in polite warfare with each other see Navaho/Hopi that wont change.
peace

#494 - Walton:

I very much agree with what Lonely Libertarian and some others have been saying on the latter part of this thread.

To call oneself a small-l libertarian doesn't automatically imply that one has to subscribe to hardline Libertarian dogma, or that one has to view all of politics and economics through the prism of a simplistic set of moral axioms. Rather, it's possible to be a moderate libertarian: to generally support individual liberty and a free-market economy, but to recognise the need for government intervention in some areas where the market fails. The market can't protect scarce environmental resources or deal with climate change, for instance, or provide a welfare safety-net for the poorest people in society, or ensure that children from deprived backgrounds have fair educational opportunities. These are areas where it is legitimate and necessary for government to act.

Contemporary liberalism came into being as a response to the failings of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism has never truly managed to fix itself, but it has pointed out, IMO, some decent flaws within the framework of contemporary liberalism.

The question is, what is the right liberalism? If both of the current forms of liberalism suck enormous chunks of ass, what would a new one look like?

#495 - Deen:

@Walton, #494: then why bother using the term "libertarian" for this position? It's practically indistinguishable from being a "liberal". Except maybe that somehow "liberal" appears to have become a dirty word in the US.

I've read through a bunch of Walton's comments, so I think I can speak for the two of us.

Walton and I appear to subscribe, more or less, to the liberaltarian philosophy of the likes of Will Wilkinson and Ron Chusid.

We're not liberal enough to be liberals, and we're not libertarian enough to be libertarians. Hence the name, and my name.

#497 - badgersdaughter:

So, like Walton, I'm trying to set down what I think is ideal, without losing sight of reality too much, because I do in fact give a damn about other people and I want to understand how they work both individually and when you put them together in groups. Libertarian ideals seemed to be about the best in people and to give them the maximum room to prosper and be happy. Freedom, in other words, my family's highest ideal. But after many years I've come to realize that those who say they're Liberty's greatest friends may in fact not be. Libertarianism is looking more and more like alternative medicine, things that sound good and should work, but in practice fall short and may even be dangerous when used in place of things that do work.

What things actually do work? That's another question.

That's all I care about. It would be nice to openly discuss that without a large portion of the political compass being demonized. Probably not as interesting, but nice.

Judging by the swarms of ignorant libertarians crawling throughout our innerwebz, I'm not particularly surprised that knowledgeable scholars like 'Tis lose patience with us.

#504 - Deen

I doubt it. By far, most of the wealth from exploiting Africa's resources will go to the rich and powerful multinationals that have the means to develop these resources, and to the corrupt governments, not to the poor people in Africa. Sure, some of that revenue will trickle down to the general population, but nowhere near as fast as you seem to think. After all, any dollar spent in Africa means less profit, so they'll want to make sure to let as little money trickle into the African economy as possible.

That's not to say I'm in favor of trade restrictions like import taxes and export taxes. But merely lifting these restrictions isn't going to magically make poverty go down in a matter of months.

This is why the world's smallest political quiz seriously underestimates my libertarian-ness. I can't claim to oppose all protectionism because there are cases, like the one you just mentioned, where a gradual process of opening trade as a way of incentivizing social reform is preferable.

#547 - 'Tis Himself, OM:

Not only no but fuck no. In 2008 the folks at AIG were looking at short term profits. AIG sold credit default swaps (CDSs) on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which had by the time of receipt declined in value by as much as 33% and which there was a reasonable expectation they would decline. That is not efficient.

I notice you don't answer my transparency argument. Is it because you know you don't actually have an answer? That would be my guess.

No, I don't have an answer at this time. I think you make a very good point, and I'm interested in reading the journal articles you mentioned.

Believe it or not I am an economist. You might read my post #440 where I criticize the Austrian School for rejecting models.

I've criticized the Austrians extensively. Just not on Pharyngula. I'm an old reader, but new to the comments section.

I saw that you linked to Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist by GMU economist, Bryan Caplan. If any goldbugs are still hanging around this comment thread, you may find this YouTube debate interesting.

A libertarian won't tell you how to raise your kids or force you to raise them in the way they want. I was quite dissapointed to hear PZ say that if he had the power he would outlaw home-schooling. Very dissapointing.

His ideas about Libertarians believe are far off the mark, which tells me he is making many assumptions without really trying to understand it, which doesn't seem very scientific.

Mnphenow,

Greetings @Knockgoats. Thanks for taking the time to read and address my comments. I'll do my best to respond in kind.

We've had endless glibertarians through here, we know what selfish shits most of them are, simply concerned to protect their own positions of privilege as rich white males.

This is an unfortunate and unfair generalization that doesn't address the issues at hand.

It is not unfair, based on the glibertarians who have commented on Pharyngula.

Suppose I come and get into your home through an open window while it's empty, then change the locks. No violence involved. I'm prepared to bet you think violence would be justified to get me out.

I tried to remain as brief as possible and so didn't delve into the corollary principles that flow from the non-aggression principle. One of them is that private property (acquired by way of Lockian homesteading or legitimate title transfer) is to be free from the initiation of violence. In your example, you are first trespassing and then violating my rights to full ownership of my property. I would be justified in seeking restitution, but only to make myself whole, not to pursue punitive measures.

Absolute private property rights do not follow from the “non-aggression principle” (which, IIRC, you referred to as non-initiation of violence before, which is different). What property rights there should be is a contestable question. The “legitimate title transfer” dodge is one American glibertarians are particularly fond of, since without it they would have to return practically the whole of the USA to the descendants of those Native American societies it was stolen from. This is exactly what I mean by talking about the defence of privilege: past aggression from which the glibertarian has profited is excused, while the glibertarian’s own “property rights” are sacred.

Only if you don't actually put a bit of thought into it. Suppose there's a famine in progress, and a grain trader has managed to corner the market. He's holding on as the price soars ever higher, and people are seeing their children starve. Now we've had glibertarians on here defending the "right" of the trader to do that. Fucking pusbuckets. I defend the right of the starving to take the grain they need from this piece of shit. This situation, by the way, is not some far-fetched hypothetical - happens every time there's a famine.

This analysis belies a misunderstanding of the nature of the price system. Prices play an indispensable coordinating function in the market. Rising prices do a number of things. First, they encourage people to ration and prioritize based on the current (sometimes tragic) reality. This helps prevent shortages since, if prices were fixed, the first people in line would tend to buy more than they can get by with, leaving those in the back of the line with nothing when supplies are exhausted. Second, they encourage produces of the same (or substitutable) goods to relocate to where prices are rising. This brings the needed goods from far and wide, both increasing the supplies in the famine-ravaged location and simultaneously driving down the high prices. If prices are artificially fixed, the other suppliers can't afford to ship their goods a long distance to fulfill the needs of those in trouble and the shortage is exacerbated. For a similar discussion of this issue, see this discussion between atheist libertarian Walter Block and the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPvH0eUU9jQ#t=2m16s

I’ll do you the favour of assuming that the above offensive garbage stems from sheer ignorance. In every famine in at least the last century, people have starved because they have no resources with which to buy food, not because there is no food at all. They will have spent any money they have, borrowed whatever they can, sold or eaten their livestock, sold their household possessions. Then they are left to decide which of the family dies. Markets, as you should be aware, respond to effective demand – that is, demand by those with the resources to trade with. I note also that, as is the glibertarian habit (and this is where the name comes from), you respond to concrete examples with pie-in-the-sky “general principles”.

Crap. Most of the glibertarians we've had here are anthropogenic climate change denialists. The few who are not, just simper about how the market will sort it out. Right: like it did London smogs, acid rain and ozone-destroying chemicals... Oh, wait, that was government regulation and international treaties.

In all these cases, it is a failure of government to protect private property rights. Nobody has the right to violate my property by pumping their pollutants into my yard or into the air I breath. A properly functioning judicial system would hold the perpetrators responsible by first issuing an injunction and second, paying damages to make me whole.

Give me strength. As others have pointed out, you can’t sue every company even in your own country that is causing a diffuse pollution problem. Let alone trying to make this work globally. Nor are damages going to “make you whole” if you’re already dead or have had your health ruined. Again, I’ve given specific examples, you have not shown how any of them could have been solved by glibertarianism.

No, it's a load of bilge. Unregulated markets are inherently unstable, because the rich (a) Can afford to wait, while the poor can't, and (b) will collude to control prices. I know about von Mises's ludicrous dismissal of empirical evidence because it doesn't fit his fuckwitted "axioms".

Yes, markets are inherently unstable as are all sufficiently-complex phenomena operating in the realm of reality. Fortunately though, markets are also negative feedback systems that, while never settling on it for extended periods, are always tending towards a dynamic equilibrium.

No, they are not, because there are also positive feedbacks – the rich are always in a stronger position to get a good deal than the poor, so inequalities tend to increase; and speculative bubbles arise because of positive feedback between price rises and the expectation of future rises. The latter phenomenon gives rise to what are clled “fat-tailed” or “leptokurtic” statistical distributions of the size of disturbances in unregulated markets. These appear both in real-world financial markets, and in simulations of them. They mean that large disturbances are relatively common, and no limit can be placed on their size.

The problems of the rich and the poor are complex ones. It is important to point out that libertarians can't be forced to answer for present conditions as if the present arrangements are of their making or would be their desired arrangements. The so-called "capitalism" of the present is anything but capitalism and libertarians are in favor of much more fundamental change to the current system than are either the left or the right. At present, the "rich" get most of their advantage from preferential treatment from the government. There has never been a case of a true, lasting monopoly emerging on the free market without protection from government.

The last point may be true, if only because there has never been such a market in a complex society. However, monopolies and oligopolies arose on a huge scale in the “robber baron” period of American capitalism; and it is easy to see why they will: the big players have an interest in creating them, either by buying out their rivals, or colluding with them. As I’ve already pointed out, you can’t just change the meaning of the word “capitalism” to suit yourself. The pretence that it doesn’t mean what everyone other than glibertarians agree it means – the economic system we now live under – is simply dishonest. It is also the basis of what I call the “glibertarian shuffle” – although to be fair, this has not been obvious in what you have siad. The “glibertarian shuffle” is the glibertarian habit of claiming credit for the real achievements of capitalism – its immense development of the productive capabilities of humanity and the benefits in terms of longer life, greater literacy, political pluralism etc. that have flowed from that – and then as soon as the downside is pointed out – the violence and oppression both past and present, the huige inequalities of wealth and power, the environmental destruction – saying “Oh, that’s not capitalism”. You don’t even try to explain how the rich would be prevented from expanding their power indefinitely in your anarcho-capitalist paradise – or, for example, how a judicial system would work. Who gets to choose which tribunal is used in a dispute? Who enforces its decisions? In practice, the rich and ruthless would of course hire private armies and have their own tame tribunals: Chaotic violence would be followed by the rule of the strong. This isn’t guesswork: we’ve seen a number of instances recently of what happens when the state fails within a capitalist world-system.

Hey, that's my professional work you're talking about there, matey. I've got news for you: 1) Nothing about the theory of complex systems says the emergent behaviour you get is going to be the behaviour you want, let alone one that will suit all actors. 2) People don't interact only locally. Hadn't you noticed? What you have in an economic system (or the larger socio-environmental system it is part of) is a contested complex adaptive system, in which multiple actors have their own interpretations of how the whole system does function, and how it should function. Simplistic blathering about the virtues of emergence won't cut it.

Cool! In what capacity is complexity theory your professional work? This is a field of study that interests me greatly, though I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch.
As a computational modeller of complex systems including human actors.

I think I would agree that there is nothing about complexity qua complexity that necessitates that complex systems will bring about emergent behavior that is desirable. Complex systems are inherently un-"manageable" systems. For a good discussion of this, see Mises' Socialism.

No, they are not inherently unmanageable. If that were so, farming would not work, breeding crops or livestock would not work, none of the mass societies with governments that have existed in the last 5,000 years would have worked – because ecosystems, breeding populations and societies are all complex systems. Can you really not see that if the word of the prophet von Mises is contradicted by vast amounts of empirical evidence, he must be wrong?

On the other hand, I think the general direction -- the nature of the dynamic equilibrium -- is determined by the basic rules of the actors. In biology, the basic rules seem to be 1) the propagation and preservation of genetic information in DNA, 2) the combination and mutation of genetic information, and 3) the selection forces of adaptability and survivability. These basic rules tend to bring about complex organisms uniquely evolved for survivability. In economics, the the basic rules appear to be 1) self-ownership / non-aggression / private property, 2) the fact that humans act to employ means in order to lessen felt uneasiness or to maximize a perceived benefit, and 3) mutually-beneficial, non-coerced, voluntary exchange. These basic rules tend to bring about complex economies uniquely suited to serving people's needs and desires.

The fact that you are unable to distinguish between the natural regularities of biology and the social norms you would like to see is characteristic of gliberetarianism, and very telling. Your “basic rules” of economics are not even internally consistent: if a person thinks they can maximise a perceived benefit by fraud, theft or murder, what is to stop them in the anarcho-capitalist paradise?

Concerning your 2) above, I wasn't contending that people only interact locally in the sense that we commonly use that term, but in terms of the larger economy. I was using it in the sense used in Steven Johnson's "Emergence," and in the sense that, as Leonard Read points out in "I, Pencil," there is not a single human alive who knows how to make something even as simple as a #2 graphite pencil.

I know: that’s why I noted that there are multiple agents having their own ideas about how the system as a whole works, and how it should work. It’s rather absurd that you fail to notice this, since you, and the prophets Hayek and von Mises, are among them.

If you were right, the processes and results of evolution are not - hadn't you noticed? - uniformly benign.

No, I agree that the results of complex processes are not uniformly benign. To claim so would be foolish. There is a great variety of results. My contention is that, despite our best intentions and our greatest concerted efforts, the system can not be managed on a large scale. In other words, complex economies are inherently imperfect, but they cannot be improved upon in a systematic way. To improve upon a complex society would require intelligence that is itself more complex than the society itself to track, compute, comprehend, and modify the system for a particular purpose. But such a thing requires all of the dynamically-interacting component parts to model the system (with all of the environmental variables) and then additional resources to compute, analyze and act upon the system. This would require an entire universe larger than our own. It is the same infinite regression we fall into if we try to posit a creator of the universe.

So, unfortunately, I think the best we can do is to stick to the non-aggression principle, let the market produce the wonders it inevitably does, and allow people to freely cooperate with each other for mutually-beneficial ends. Any intervention into this system only leads to arbitrary, unintended, unforeseen, negative consequences.

You evidently know nothing of adaptive control theory: if you hook up outputs of a system to inputs in the right way (e.g. via human beings using nothing more sophisticated than trial and error), you can in fact make the system less complex in its behaviour. The basic error here is exactly the same as that creationists and denialists of various kinds fall into: that if we don’t know everything about a system, we have no useful knowledsge and can’t make any useful predictions. You can see that this is false using your own example of the weather below (one that climate change denialists use ad nauseam). Sure, we can’t accurately predict the weather 10 days in advance. But we sure as hell can predict that July in the Arctic is going to be warmer than January.

Only historically, of course, they didn't: violence and compulsion were key to the genesis of capitalism, and if you want to go further back, key to the genesis of feudalism, of the first money economies, of the first urban economies - and there we're at the beginning of recorded history. But then as a good von Misesian, you'll dismiss the historical evidence because it doesn't fit the axioms.

Certainly violence and compulsion were present all throughout any attempt at capitalism (or any other social, economic, or political undertaking), but it doesn't mean it had anything to do with capitalism. Capitalism is defined as a system strictly prohibiting any form of violence or compulsion.

I note once again the rank dishonesty of this tactic. No, capitalism is not defined as you claim it is.

I also don't think Misesians dismiss any and all historical evidence. They often deal with historical examples to help bolster their claims or refute those of opposing schools of thought. The fact of the matter is that we simply cannot gather enough data to construct accurate models of economies using nothing more than empirical fact. The same is true of the weather. We would need infinite data points in order to accurately model the weather. Similarly with evolution. The fossil record and the available genetic data only give us very sparse snapshots of biology throughout history. We need to incorporate this data into our theories and it needs to corroborate it, but we ultimately need to have a deeper understanding of the principles at work in order to describe complex systems.
Of course, they only dismiss the examples that don’t fit their ludicrous “axioms”. We have here the crass error of thinking that a model (and there’s no real difference between a theory and a model) has to be perfect to be useful.

Well, you're certainly not. You're clearly a True Believer.

I don't think this is fair. I think I have demonstrated that I'm open to honest discussion. My beliefs are and always have been a work in progress. I am always willing to hear other perspectives and work to incorporate them into my thinking so that I can always come closer to the real truth.

No, it’s characteristic of the True Believer that, faced with contrary evidence, they return to the sacred scriptures and believe that citing them is actually an argument.

There's nothing more irrational than market-worship.

Again, I don't see how simply trying to present my views constitutes market-worship. I have tried to stick to dealing strictly with the issues at hand and avoid ad hominem attacks. These are serious issues that deserve our honest inquiry.
First, look up what the ad hominem fallacy is; the term doesn’t mean what you think it means. Second, you have consistently avoided any consideration of the real world in favour of your prophets’ fantasies. How to move toward a free, peaceful and sustainable society is indeed a serious issue, but glibertarianism has no more to contribute to that endeavour than creationism or Scientology.

In your reply to @Bobber #314:

(In the end, though, these collective terms are just a rhetorical convenience. There is, in some sense, no real "community" -- take away all the individuals and there's nothing left.)

In exactly the same sense, there is no real “human being” – take away all the cells and there’s nothing left. But of course, there’s no real “cell” – take away all the molecules and there’s nothing left. But of course, there’s no real “molecule” – take away all the atoms and there’s nothing left. But of course there’s no real “atom” – take away all the quarks and leptons and there’s nothing left.

In general, though, there are other issues to consider. First, while famines are unquestionably tragic, where does one get the right to steal from one group of people to give to another group of people, regardless of the circumstances? While I would agree that it is the moral thing to do to come to the aid of a fellow human in need, I can only do so with my own property, not by stealing my neighbor's property to give to the needy.

The heart of glibertarianism: property “rights” count for more than human life. Fuck that noise.

Cimourdain, lying again:

1. I have, repeatedly, referred to the genocides, plural, of the Sudan. The first of these that I referred to was the murder of two million animists and Christians. I have mentioned this several times before, but note that KG treats it as though it didn't happen, and is utterly irrelevant because it does not fit his worldview.

Except, of course, that I specifically referred to it in the sentences you quote. This is not ordinary lying, this is definitely something pathological.

2. To claim that the most recent genocide in Darfur is not a case of Jihad, you need to ignore the fact that Islam has always been a vessel of Arab supremacism.

You said it was a case of "classic Jihad" - which would of course be aimed at non-Muslims or those regarded as heretics. That was what I was denying. Of course I am aware that religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and power-building by state elites frequently overlap, and have certainly done so in the case of Sudan. It is you, Cimourdain, who insists on reducing all the complexity of any contemporary and historical oppressions, wars and genocides in which Muslims have had any part to "Islam is teh ebil!!!!".

I notice, incidentally, that you have not responded to the evidence about DDT I linked to, or responded to the clear evidence that you were lying when you said I had objected to "demonizing Communism", nor have you pointed us to where you claimed, prior to this thread, that you have been born and bred in Africa. Does anyone else remember that? I'd like to see the context and what Cimourdain actually said, if indeed this is not another figment of his imagination.

Hey, folks, here's something new to look at. I was previously unaware of this thing called "libertarian socialism. - badgersdaughter

*chuckle*

Yeah, I've only been aware of this for about 41 years, at the point where I became an anarchist after reading George Woodcock's Anarchism(I'm not one any more but still have a good deal of sympathy for left anarchism.) At that time, in the UK, "libertarian socialist" or even just "libertarian" were synonyms for left anarchism (and there was no right anarchism beyond a few Stirnerites). The glibertarians have stolen and defiled the word, which is why I will not use it of them.

I've only been aware of this for about 41 years...

Well, new to me and new to the thread. I don't pretend to know everything. I can't even say what I think about "libertarian socialism" yet, since I only have just run across it. Thanks for the info.

Maybe "narcissarchy" would be a better label for most of the people who call themselves Libertarians.

A libertarian won't tell you how to raise your kids or force you to raise them in the way they want.

Translation: a libertarian won't protect your kids from having their lives and ability to function in the world destroyed by delusional or negligent parenting.

His ideas about Libertarians believe are far off the mark, which tells me he is making many assumptions without really trying to understand it, which doesn't seem very scientific.

And making broad assertions without a single point of evidence is?

A libertarian won't tell you how to raise your kids or force you to raise them in the way they want.

Translation: a libertarian won't protect your kids from having their lives and ability to function in the world destroyed by delusional or negligent parenting.

As snarky as this sounds, it is true. Libertarianism can't be used to justify any definite cutoff age or event where adulthood happens, and the individual then is thought of as having full human rights. Libertarians must fall back on some statutory definition of legal age to separate children from adults, or, even worse, rely on vague "local standards", or even worse than that, allow the parents to decide when their children merit full human rights. I thought that libertarian thought advocated for the freedom and dignity of every individual, but in practice, libertarians treat children as property, not as humans with rights and interests to be defended.

("Individual" and "child" are, here, to be read as "born person," because otherwise, any thoughts about personal autonomy and full human rights vanish into absurdity.)

Capitalism is defined as a system strictly prohibiting any form of violence or compulsion.

I have just looked in ten books I have dealing in whole or in part with capitalism as an economic theory. None of these books mentions violence, either pro or con, when describing the definition of capitalism. But as I've maintained already, most libertarians are economic illiterates.

If libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in favor of that minted by private banks. But this has already been tried in various times and places. It doesn’t lead to any wonderful paradise of freedom but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks that survive the inevitable shaking-out. Many other libertarian schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.

A major reason for this is most libertarians have a naïve view of economics which seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual history of capitalism around 1880. I'm not going to refute simplistic laissez faire economics. However I note the second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially lost control over their economy, like Russia, are hardly economic paradises.

When YEC's decided it was easier to attack science than to find inspiration in it, it did more harm to Xtianity than anything since the 100 Years War.

Likewise, when libertarians decided to oppose science (climate science, ozone, environmental science...) rather than develop effective strategies for dealing with the challenges science had discovered, it speaks volumes. It means that even the libertarians do not have sufficient confidence in their robustness of their ideology to deal with reality head on. Such cowardice makes me look at everything libertarians espouse with suspicion. Libertarianism is now and forever associated with anti-science wingnuttery.

badgersdaughter,
Sorry, my #563 was rather snarky!

On the other hand, libertarians do a great job of arranging books in a predictable sequence on shelves, helping me find reference materials or use the microfiche machine and obtaining books from partnering institutions.

I notice some blockquote-fails in my #561:

"Of course, they only dismiss the examples that don’t fit their ludicrous “axioms”. We have here the crass error of thinking that a model (and there’s no real difference between a theory and a model) has to be perfect to be useful."
should be at top-level (i.e. it's mine)

So should:
"As a computational modeller of complex systems including human actors.",
and:
"Of course, they only dismiss the examples that don’t fit their ludicrous “axioms”. We have here the crass error of thinking that a model (and there’s no real difference between a theory and a model) has to be perfect to be useful."

"There's nothing more irrational than market-worship." should be two levels down (it's mine)

"Again, I don't see how simply trying to present my views constitutes market-worship. I have tried to stick to dealing strictly with the issues at hand and avoid ad hominem attacks. These are serious issues that deserve our honest inquiry."
should be one level down (its mnphenow's).

Sorry, I did use review, but with insufficient care.

Sorry, my #563 was rather snarky!

Oh, phooey, you've said far worse things to me than that.

Make it up to me later. ;)

badgersdaughter@573,

Oh, phooey, you've said far worse things to me than that.

True. But on this occasion, you were sharing what was, to you and probably many others, interesting new information; that's not a suitable occasion for snark!

Make it up to me later. ;)

You already offered to bring the first bottle should we ever meet - I'll supply the rest!

First time in these smackdowns that I've seen libertarian socialism mentioned, and now by three different people. This is the basis for my occasional teasing of SC as being a libertarian -- in my ignorance, many types of left anarchism seem describable as libertarian socialism.

Probably socialism polling well* in the USA indicates interest in all sorts of socialism.

Anarchism of the 1800s was grandparent to both modern types of libertarian. The right-wing libertarians at some time found that they could make simpler models if they ignored the coercion inherent in laboring for life's necessities without owning the means of production.

* relative to recent past

I think that many of the anarchist and socialist movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s initially stemmed from the crushed revolutions of 1848-49. Not only had the revolutionaries come very close in Italy and parts of Germany, but the brutality with which they were crushed galvanized liberal opinion in much of Europe against monarchism and scattered radicals all over Europe

The movements that resulted ranged from rather ineffectual aristocratic socialists to ultra-violent anarchist groups who thought the revolution was just a bomb or a successful assassination away. These movements lost a lot of steam as a result of the role they played in igniting the tinder that started WW I.

At the same time, the revolutions of 1849 fostered nationalism, especially in the German principalities and Italy. And while the various anarchist and socialist movements declined, nationalism continued to thrive, in part, leading to the conflagration of WW II.

I think it is easy to dismiss the Victorian era as rather genteel, but there was a lot of pressure under the placid veneer.

I should have posted this earlier, but here's a reading list from an earlier incarnation of this thread.

The movements that resulted ranged from rather ineffectual aristocratic socialists to ultra-violent anarchist groups who thought the revolution was just a bomb or a successful assassination away. These movements lost a lot of steam as a result of the role they played in igniting the tinder that started WW I. - a_ray_in_dilbert_space

WTF???? Neither anarchists nor socialists had any role in "igniting the timber that started WW I". The "spark" was an act of state-sponsored terror - the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was ordered by Colonel Dimitrevich, head of Serbian military intelligence, and carried out by Serbian nationalist fanatics. This led to all-out war because of the division of Europe into two armed camps, with a resulting arms race, and the German invasion of Belgium.

Neither anarchists nor socialists had any role in "igniting the timber that started WW I".

I need to smack myself for having missed this. The First World War was a result of nationalism run amok - socialists and anarchists were overwhelmingly opposed to the war, as well as to the alliances between colonialist, capitalist nations that helped it to grow from an incident involving a middling power to encompass the entire world in a meaningless mass slaughter.

I don't understand why politics has to be in convenient boxes. Why not a more sophisticated approach than right/left, libertarian/authoritarian?

Eupraxsopher,
1) Who has said it does?
2) What more sophisticated approach do you suggest? Do you, in fact, have anything useful to say at all, or do you just like making empty comments that allow you to feel superior?

I don't understand why politics has to be in convenient boxes. ??