Libertarian Discussion Thread

[VoVoDoCo]

Marxism doesn't make sense because it's full of shit. My business didn't start, or grow from taking anything from or profitting off of a base of broke ass people.

loooooooooooooooooooooool

^Production of wealth and lowering unemployment is hilarious

[Questers]

loooooooooooooooooooooool

^Production of wealth and lowering unemployment is hilarious

Step one: circular argument (My dog is dumb because it's dumb)
Step two: Mischaracterise the other ideology dramatically
Step three: Pretend you are unchallengeably right

Libertarians.jpg

[VoVoDoCo]

^Production of wealth and lowering unemployment is hilarious

Step one: circular argument (My dog is dumb because it's dumb)
Step two: Mischaracterise the other ideology dramatically
Step three: Pretend you are unchallengeably right

Libertarians.jpg

Are you talking about me or Nulla?

[VoVoDoCo]

^Production of wealth and lowering unemployment is hilarious

Step one: circular argument (My dog is dumb because it's dumb)
Step two: Mischaracterise the other ideology dramatically
Step three: Pretend you are unchallengeably right

Libertarians.jpg

If you meant me:

What circular argument did I make?

Clearly I posted that to start a debate with you. If you've read my past 5-ish posts you'll know that's not how I argue. Also, you assume all Libertarians debate via shitpost. Seems like a dramatic mischaracterization. Wink wink.

I don't believe I've ever stated that. Or even expressed that.

If you meant Nulla, I'll let him/her defend themself. I see em floating around online. *shrug*

[Nulla Bellum]

Step one: circular argument (My dog is dumb because it's dumb)
Step two: Mischaracterise the other ideology dramatically
Step three: Pretend you are unchallengeably right

Libertarians.jpg

Are you talking about me or Nulla?

I think he's still trying to figure out why our Chinese child slaves can make disposable microwave ovens all day long and he's not allowed to flip burgers for $20 an hour.

[VoVoDoCo]

Are you talking about me or Nulla?

I think he's still trying to figure out why our Chinese child slaves can make disposable microwave ovens all day long and he's not allowed to flip burgers for $20 an hour.

I love you.

[Nulla Bellum]

I think he's still trying to figure out why our Chinese child slaves can make disposable microwave ovens all day long and he's not allowed to flip burgers for $20 an hour.

I love you.

It's the snarkskin hat, right?

[VoVoDoCo]

I love you.

It's the snarkskin hat, right?

You know it.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I've heard that term before, but I don't know what it means. Can you explain it to me?

It's a form of economic organisation which stems from Catholic social teaching in which capital (i.e. the means of production) are distributed with every citizen getting a bit of a share, but without things like welfare or central planners.

Perhaps the ultimate "feels before reals" policy program. Instead of having an omnistate distribute goodies through bureaucrats we make literally everyone part of the omnistate to do omnistate things, while convincing ourselves we're not part of an omnistate.

everything in the state, nothing outside the state, etc etc

[Orostan]

Yes, you missed past outsourcing. Does it say how many Americans lost their industrial jobs via outsourcing? Do you have a graph of American industrial employment employment? Because I do.

A drop from 19,000 to 12,000?
7,000?
That's less than the number of people employed from outsourcing I gave.

Scratch that, I read it wrong.
19,000,000 to 12,000,000
7 million.
That's a loss of 205,882 a year from the whole US. The stat I gave? Was just jobs created in Tennessee.

So by that, wages should be constantly increasing in the US. But they're not. That must mean that workers are in competition with other workers.

And what kind of jobs are being created? A lot of job growth is in temporary fields or the "gig" economy if I recall correctly.

I prefer Ockham's razor.

Marxism doesn't make sense because it's full of shit. My business didn't start, or grow from taking anything from or profitting off of a base of broke ass people.

Yeah. Myself I find communism to be overly optimistic about human nature and rather myopic in its opinion of the divide between the classes.

I'm not a Libertarian either though, mostly because I'm not a fan of just letting folks suffer and die when it can be stopped.

If we assume human nature is to accumulate as much stuff as possible, communism would still be the best mode of production.

The class divide between bourgeois, petty bourgeois, and proletarian is defined by relation to the means of production. That's very clear.

I think the idea is said 'parasites' only have what they have by taking everything which should have gone to the 'empty' hosts.

Or something like that.

I prefer Ockham's razor.

Marxism doesn't make sense because it's full of shit. My business didn't start, or grow from taking anything from or profitting off of a base of broke ass people.

No, the rich just get lucky or are born into it. If they own the Bakery, they can pay the Baker whatever they want. If workers are easily replaced, they can sell the bread during a shortage for a price so high he cannot afford it.

The bourgeois are parasites. Even if they start the ball rolling, they are still parasites for 99% of the time.

Point of order. What use have I, a boog "parasite," for feeding off empty hosts? Seriously. what am I taking from someone who literally has nothing to take?

Marxism, where even the labor value of insults make no sense.

If you actually own a business, I can understand why you're an ancap.

And your business did grow off of taking from people. If you own it, a good portion of your money is probably from surplus value. When a worker works, their wage must always be lower than the amount of money their labor makes for the business.

For example, let's say we have a worker making toasters. Over the course of the work day, they will make 10 toasters which in total are worth 1000 dollars. If they are paid 100 dollars a day, they only need to make 1 toaster to cover their wage. That means 90% of the toasters they make are generating surplus value, which they have no control over. Even if the worker is broke, he is still being stolen from.

I find it neat how in your list, you just so happen to forget to put number four down. I'll do it for you.
4)murder people

Oh wait, political parties don't do that. I feel like I would've noticed that on the online PDF of their platforms.

2. Political parties kill people all the time, or rather the people who are part of them do.

2. But it's not a part of those parties ideologies. It IS a part of yours.
Also tu quoque

You misunderstand. All I'm saying is that political parties like the Republicans and Democrats do dronestrikes and war in the same way. Their policies kill people. Singling out socialism is dishonest. Besides, in the long run socialism would save lives.

People who belong to political parties kill people too. Personally I'd like it if socialism could be established without having to kill anyone, but I don't know if that's possible.

It's a form of economic organisation which stems from Catholic social teaching in which capital (i.e. the means of production) are distributed with every citizen getting a bit of a share, but without things like welfare or central planners.

Perhaps the ultimate "feels before reals" policy program. Instead of having an omnistate distribute goodies through bureaucrats we make literally everyone part of the omnistate to do omnistate things, while convincing ourselves we're not part of an omnistate.

everything in the state, nothing outside the state, etc etc

I've explained computerized planning several times through this thread, and you still don't understand it. Distributism, as far as I can tell, is a type of market socialism. Perhaps with decentralized planning, but even that doesn't involve much bureaucracy.

[Taihei Tengoku]

A computer is perhaps the least important detail of a planning regime.

[Nulla Bellum]

A computer is perhaps the least important detail of a planning regime.

And yet also its worst enemy. The link I posted earlier to a Misean review of "Towards A New Socialism" makes much of the "new" socialism's concession of the economic calculation problem for central planning, and the limits of computational speed and power. The most powerful supercomputers in the world at the time of said review (2003) would take at least 16,000 years to process all the data needed to calculate the "new" socialist solution to the IMPOSSIBILITY flaw of centrally planned economic calculation.

That's a long time to wait to see if you need food more than someone else, and doesn't even approach the data collection issues of violating property and privacy rights to error-check the validity and completeness of the data to be processed. A chain of parallel-processing supercomputers with omniscient data collection (we're in science fiction land now) would have to be around 505 Billion supercomputers linked together to resolve the economic calculation problem of socialism in 1 second. That's a lot of space and energy being wasted on regimentalized institutional absurdity.

So, we're back to square one, how do we make socialism not retarded?

Pssst. You can't. A = A. Socialism is Retarded.

[Orostan]

A computer is perhaps the least important detail of a planning regime.

No, computers are very significant.

A computer is perhaps the least important detail of a planning regime.

And yet also its worst enemy. The link I posted earlier to a Misean review of "Towards A New Socialism" makes much of the "new" socialism's concession of the economic calculation problem for central planning, and the limits of computational speed and power. The most powerful supercomputers in the world at the time of said review (2003) would take at least 16,000 years to process all the data needed to calculate the "new" socialist solution to the IMPOSSIBILITY flaw of centrally planned economic calculation.

That's a long time to wait to see if you need food more than someone else, and doesn't even approach the data collection issues of violating property and privacy rights to error-check the validity and completeness of the data to be processed.

We're back to square one, how do we make socialism not retarded?

1) Cockshott goes over how, using a certain method of computation, you can reduce 16000 years to 20 minutes. The Mises Institute guy didn't read all of the book.

2) "to see if you need more food than someone else"
You once again prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Please, read the book.

[Nulla Bellum]

A computer is perhaps the least important detail of a planning regime.

No, computers are very significant.

And yet also its worst enemy. The link I posted earlier to a Misean review of "Towards A New Socialism" makes much of the "new" socialism's concession of the economic calculation problem for central planning, and the limits of computational speed and power. The most powerful supercomputers in the world at the time of said review (2003) would take at least 16,000 years to process all the data needed to calculate the "new" socialist solution to the IMPOSSIBILITY flaw of centrally planned economic calculation.

That's a long time to wait to see if you need food more than someone else, and doesn't even approach the data collection issues of violating property and privacy rights to error-check the validity and completeness of the data to be processed.

We're back to square one, how do we make socialism not retarded?

1) Cockshott goes over how, using a certain method of computation, you can reduce 16000 years to 20 minutes. The Mises Institute guy didn't read all of the book.

2) "to see if you need more food than someone else"
You once again prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Please, read the book.

I have. Please address why retarded isn't retarded. It's apparent your fascination with techno-favomancy isn't shared. Re-reading your techno-favomancy tome isn't going to change that.

Objections to stupid have been raised. Answer them.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Engineers tend to be the worst economists.

[Orostan]

No, computers are very significant.



1) Cockshott goes over how, using a certain method of computation, you can reduce 16000 years to 20 minutes. The Mises Institute guy didn't read all of the book.

2) "to see if you need more food than someone else"
You once again prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Please, read the book.

I have. Please address why retarded isn't retarded.

You clearly haven't. The 16000 year problem is adressed in the book, it's one of the first things that is addressed after computing power.

[Nulla Bellum]

favomancy - a form of divination in which the future is allegedly forecast by tossing beans on the ground and interpreting meaning from where they landed.

[Nulla Bellum]

I have. Please address why retarded isn't retarded.

You clearly haven't. The 16000 year problem is adressed in the book, it's one of the first things that is addressed after computing power.

Are you going to waste pages calling me a liar, or address the objections raised?

Hint: The fact that "new" socialists are even trying to resolve the impossibility of economic calcalation in central planning IS A CONCESSION OF THE FLAW'S EXISTENCE pointed out by Mises.

You're welcome.

Reducing computational processing time from 16,000 years to 20 minutes is an impressive feat of science fiction, as is the God-like level of omniscience the computer would need to stay updated with dynamic changes in economic and material conditions on Minute 21 and beyond.

I love science fiction, but even if we could build a God-Computer to plan our lives in 20 minutes or less, both the data and material conditions it seeks to program will have decayed into obsolescence by the time its human agents recieve and carry out its instructions in the meatspace world.

Let's address why Rey didn't ignite and cut off Darth Emo's arms during her Force tug-of-war with him over Anakin Skywalker's blue lightsaber.

Socialism is farce.

[Northern Davincia]

Porky's fortune can just as easily be maintained by accumulating more and more money. It doesn't matter how much he wastes, so long as he has more coming in. Even so, Capitalism still rewards the most exploitative behaviors which means we only end up with an even worse ruling class after 'natural selection' has taken hold.

To your second bit, you miss an important part of economics. The reason why price increases when supply is low in relation to demand is because sellers are not competing any more, or as much any more. The reason why prices go down in periods of overproduction is because buyers are not competing anymore. The free market will only "sort itself out" after lives are lost, and much economic output is lost. Socialism would ensure that as few people as possible die, and that as little as possible is lost.


If a Baker is talented enough, the bakery will say to him; "You are ten times as productive as the average person. But we will not pay you ten times as much, because for that we could just hire ten people! You are in competition with these 10 people for a job. You must be cheaper than them."

The maintenance of fortune can never be achieved through idleness, unless the government were to intervene.

You are completely ignoring scarcity when you mention competition. There is no historical proof that socialism has saved lives, unlike capitalism.

From what I've seen, a baker ten times as productive as his peers gets promoted, or other bakeries will creative incentives to attract qualified labor.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The real problem is that even if the computer took a nanosecond to calculate prices the actual price system would shift around it.

[Irona]

The real problem is that even if the computer took a nanosecond to calculate prices the actual price system would shift around it.

We manage with humans calculating prices, and that takes a lot longer than a nano-second.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The words are right but the thought is wrong

[Orostan]

Porky's fortune can just as easily be maintained by accumulating more and more money. It doesn't matter how much he wastes, so long as he has more coming in. Even so, Capitalism still rewards the most exploitative behaviors which means we only end up with an even worse ruling class after 'natural selection' has taken hold.

To your second bit, you miss an important part of economics. The reason why price increases when supply is low in relation to demand is because sellers are not competing any more, or as much any more. The reason why prices go down in periods of overproduction is because buyers are not competing anymore. The free market will only "sort itself out" after lives are lost, and much economic output is lost. Socialism would ensure that as few people as possible die, and that as little as possible is lost.


If a Baker is talented enough, the bakery will say to him; "You are ten times as productive as the average person. But we will not pay you ten times as much, because for that we could just hire ten people! You are in competition with these 10 people for a job. You must be cheaper than them."

The maintenance of fortune can never be achieved through idleness, unless the government were to intervene.

You are completely ignoring scarcity when you mention competition. There is no historical proof that socialism has saved lives, unlike capitalism.

From what I've seen, a baker ten times as productive as his peers gets promoted, or other bakeries will creative incentives to attract qualified labor.

If you're a millionaire you can hire people to make money for you and have your net worth grow while you sleep.

With regards to socialism saving lives, there is plenty of proof. Cuba is known for exporting doctors and developing new vaccines for example.

Capitalism meanwhile can't feed Africa or stop preventable disease because it's not profitable.

And now to the baker. If a baker is ten times a productive, that means that a bakery could just hire 10 normal bakers to put out the same profit. If the talented baker wants 10 times more pay than a regular baker, the bakery gains nothing. The baker must accept regular pay, and then his rate of exploitation would actually be higher than average. He gains nothing, and looses more.

You clearly haven't. The 16000 year problem is adressed in the book, it's one of the first things that is addressed after computing power.

Are you going to waste pages calling me a liar, or address the objections raised?

Hint: The fact that "new" socialists are even trying to resolve the impossibility of economic calcalation in central planning IS A CONCESSION OF THE FLAW'S EXISTENCE pointed out by Mises.

You're welcome.

Even without a computer system, planning is still possible. Hell, Capitalism is just a bunch of tiny command economies competing. You haven't actually refuted anything in TANS because the book has already adressed your arguments.

The real problem is that even if the computer took a nanosecond to calculate prices the actual price system would shift around it.

Elaborate, please.

[Nulla Bellum]

The real problem is that even if the computer took a nanosecond to calculate prices the actual price system would shift around it.

We manage with humans calculating prices, and that takes a lot longer than a nano-second.

Humans calculate prices via supply and demand and the logistics of both. People cross the border from Illinois to Missouri in the St. Louis metro area to save on everything for gas to groceries (lower taxes in Missouri). Gas is generally cheaper in Missouri (we're next to the trunk of the refinery and pipeline network from the Gulf of Mexico to the Midwest up the Mississippi River) than other parts of the country where the gasoline supply has to be trucked in over roads, at additional costs.

Socialism doesn't understand logistics. Logistics are real. Ignoring reality causes carbuncles lol

[Nulla Bellum]

Are you going to waste pages calling me a liar, or address the objections raised?

Hint: The fact that "new" socialists are even trying to resolve the impossibility of economic calcalation in central planning IS A CONCESSION OF THE FLAW'S EXISTENCE pointed out by Mises.

You're welcome.

Even without a computer system, planning is still possible. Hell, Capitalism is just a bunch of tiny command economies competing. You haven't actually refuted anything in TANS because the book has already adressed your arguments.

Citatation needed. Oh wait, you need to read my arguments first. Instead of quoting parts of posts and ignoring the rest so you can keep going in circles, implying I'm lying, and repeating your read a stupid book over and over mantra as if there is a magical iteration of stupid that stops being stupid.