"Social Democrats hate it"



tldr, but I'm guessing it's typical internet nerd libertarian masturbation viewed through a lens of arbitrary values.
 
tldr, but I'm guessing it's typical internet nerd libertarian masturbation viewed through a lens of arbitrary values.

Values are, by definition, arbitrary. Feel free to say something witty (or actually talk about the topic even) if you wish.
 
tldr, but I'm guessing it's typical internet nerd libertarian masturbation viewed through a lens of arbitrary values.

"I didn't read this, but here's my opinion on it anyways."

This reflects the mind state of a lot of people on this planet. Running around rejecting things they know nothing about in order to validate the beliefs they already hold.

How can we ask people to think critically when they won't think at all?

Disclaimer: I read about half of this a couple years ago and never finished because it was too much for one sitting. I have no opinion on it. I might finish it tonight if I get bored of fapping.
 
"I didn't read this, but here's my opinion on it anyways."

This reflects the mind state of a lot of people on this planet. Running around rejecting things they know nothing about in order to validate the beliefs they already hold.

How can we ask people to think critically when they won't think at all?

Disclaimer: I read about half of this a couple years ago and never finished because it was too much for one sitting. I have no opinion on it. I might finish it tonight if I get bored of fapping.

Meh. I've been on forums since '98 (I'm almost 40) and am all too familiar with the libertarian bent many on the internet have. So when after seeing a couple of frames from the OP's link, I knew where it was going. I'm not necessarily anti-libertarianism but I do find it tiresome how libertarians are often completely unaware of the arbitrariness of their values and are unaware of the philosophy's contradictions.
 
Meh. I've been on forums since '98 (I'm almost 40) and am all too familiar with the libertarian bent many on the internet have. So when after seeing a couple of frames from the OP's link, I knew where it was going. I'm not necessarily anti-libertarianism but I do find it tiresome how libertarians are often completely unaware of the arbitrariness of their values and are unaware of the philosophy's contradictions.

Point out the contradictions that exist within the belief of the non-aggression principle (the recognition that it's immoral to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property). The NAP is the backbone of libertarian philosophy.
 
Point out the contradictions that exist within the belief of the non-aggression principle (the recognition that it's immoral to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property). The NAP is the backbone of libertarian philosophy.

You can't expect that sort of intellectual honesty from a man who so freely uses the word "meh."
 
Meh. I've been on forums since '98 (I'm almost 40) and am all too familiar with the libertarian bent many on the internet have. So when after seeing a couple of frames from the OP's link, I knew where it was going. I'm not necessarily anti-libertarianism but I do find it tiresome how libertarians are often completely unaware of the arbitrariness of their values and are unaware of the philosophy's contradictions.

meh. you're a peasant

peasant-spotted.png
 
This is great. I'm only part of the way through, but I have trouble seeing where the story presented contains any arbitrary values.

I can see that people have a choice of which values to accept, but that doesn't change reality. Ex: killing is harmful, whether you value life or not. The same thing for stealing, dishonesty, etc. Your personal awareness of morality doesn't change the facts any more than your personal understanding of themodynamics or geology.

I saw some people on HN the other day talking about how great central banking is because we can force people to spend their money instead of saving it. These people think that saving is bad for the economy and that government controlled central banks is one of the greatest inventions in human history. I'm so glad I deleted my HN account a long time ago, so I don't waste time arguing with those people.

Has anyone read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Capitalism/dp/1596985046"]The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism[/ame]? It's one of the books I want to give to all of my liberal friends that have good intentions, but a poor understanding of reality.
 
I like it, it presents basic economics in an easy to understand way.

Schiff made a critical mistake though, and it ruined his life. He tried to be rational with irrational people. He expected justice in an unjust environment where the deck is always stacked against him. He tried to use logical arguments to convince the mafia (state) that their extortion is illegal and thought he had a chance that logic would prevail.

Unsurprisingly, they made an example out of him. It's sad, there's no glory in being a martyr.

You'd think that a guy as smart as Schiff would understand that the state is logical and rational - but on their terms, not his. Someone who understands that people respond to incentives should have known that they had zero incentive to give him a fair shot - and every incentive to make an example out of him.

I can't fault the guy - but I can't help but wonder if he knew who he was dealing with and the potential consequences for picking that fight. It's like telling a robber "you have no right" while they've got a loaded gun to your head.

That aside, good read.
 
Meh. TL;DR. Fuck 'em. I prefer this view:

As pointed out by Gilbert (1938:206) it was traditional in the genre of Mirrors of Princes to mention fortune, but "Fortune pervades The Prince as she does no other similar work". Machiavelli argues that fortune is only the judge of half of our actions and that we have control over the other half with "sweat", prudence and virtue. Even more unusual, rather than simply suggesting caution as a prudent way to try to avoid the worst of bad luck, Machiavelli holds that the greatest princes in history tend to be ones who take more risks, and rise to power through their own labour, virtue, prudence, and particularly by their ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

Machiavelli even encourages risk taking as a reaction to risk. In a well-known metaphor, Machiavelli writes that "it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because fortune is a woman; and it is necessary, if one wants to hold her down, to beat her and strike her down." Gilbert (p. 217) points out that Machiavelli's friend the historian and diplomat Francesco Guicciardini expressed similar ideas about fortune.

Machiavelli compares fortune to a torrential river that cannot be easily controlled during flooding season. In periods of calm, however, people can erect dams and levees in order to minimize its impact. Fortune, Machiavelli argues, seems to strike at the places where no resistance is offered, as had recently been the case in Italy. As de Alvarez (1999:125–130) points out that what Machiavelli actually says is that Italians in his time leave things not just to fortune, but to "fortune and God". Machiavelli is indicating in this passage, as in some others in his works, that Christianity itself was making Italians helpless and lazy concerning their own politics, as if they would leave dangerous rivers uncontrolled.
Cardinal_Giovanni_de%27_Medici.jpg
 
Thanks for the link, this is great stuff, it would help immensely if schools taught this book (for the teachers too).