Posts by MeanMrMustard

40

Flat Earth Jw and Galileo Galilei

by Earthmeasured in

in the image you can see what jw wrote about how galileo was treated by the catholic church.

now they are disfelloshipping me because i believe the earth is flat.

is this coherent?.

Flat Earth Jw and Galileo Galilei

by Earthmeasured in

in the image you can see what jw wrote about how galileo was treated by the catholic church.

now they are disfelloshipping me because i believe the earth is flat.

is this coherent?.

MeanMrMustard

Awww, I was hoping for a more entertaining thread. Come back earthmeasured. Give us your wisdom.

121

What Are Your Rights?

by Simon in

jw
friends

rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.

say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.

people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.

MeanMrMustard

Simon.

Oops. I think you meant me.

Being fairly sure, but not certain, that you are, or at least lean towards being Libertarian I realize that nothing I say will sway you, but want you to know that I've done my research, and I'm not spouting leftist propaganda.

Well, now that you’ve assured me you didn’t just spout smears without research... that changes everything.

First, I'm going to list the titles of all the articles I found in the Muses Daily Articles, which is part of their online website. Just type Mises Institute, and the title, and you can read them yourself.

Ok good. Good. But, did you read them just to make sure they actually said what you think?

Civil Rights for Gays

Again, did you read the article? Let me help you out. The article is NOT suggesting gays don’t have rights. Remember, the are Libertarians. They don’t care if you are gay. Gay marriage? Sure! Polygamy? Sure! Just keep it among consenting adults. Given that, how do you think you may have gone wrong here? (Given that the article directly contradicts your smears)

Human Rights as Property Rights

Again, did you read the article? Let me help you out. This article comes free fee.org, not mises.org. However, it was written by Rothbard. Here is the article’s title statement: “The rights of the individual are still eternal and absolute; but they are property rights.”

This is a correct, and I would hope, non-controversial statement. Unless... unless... just maybe you read that and assumed it means that humans ARE property, as in slavery is good. Is that what you did there? I can’t know for sure, but why else would you have a problem with this article?

Rothbard is saying that you own yourself, and your labor, and these are the fundamental building blocks of real rights. It’s the true argument against slavery.

Children's Rights

I couldn’t find this article. I found one titled “Children and Rights” here: https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights.

In any case, did you read the article? Are you sure you aren’t assuming something about it? From your previous post, where you accused Walter Block of believing it is OK to neglect your children, I assume you think this article bolsters that view. All you needed to do was read just a few paragraphs in to find just the opposite. Libertarians believe in positive obligations for the parent, and the entire article is an argument for exactly the opposite of your accusation.

Civil Rights and the Supreme Court

This is an excerpt from “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”. It’s an audio recording. This is a Tom Woods book. Well, I have to wonder - did you listen to it? You honestly think the Supreme Court has a sterling record on preserving rights? But more importantly, how in the world does this back any of your smears? It simply does not - it does the opposite.

Why Discriminate?

Wow, an article by Walter Block and on mises.org. You are spoiling us with actually citing a source relevant to the topic. But...Did you read the article? Did you think the title was advocating for racial discrimination, and so listed it here? The position taken in the article is a typical Libertarian stand, which you don’t understand in the first place, and causes you all sorts of problems. Discrimination, even on race, is a crappy thing to do - but the last thing you want is to get the government involved in that. Why? Because if you consider the NET effects and precedents it sets, there is a NET loss. Just reference any gay wedding cake debate for this viewpoint. Or, since you love YouTube, go on and search up another Walter: Walter Williams. He’s a black economist, not associated with Mises Institute at all. I assume that checks off enough minority checkboxes so that you will at least listen to the arguments made. However, on this count, you cite something that shows the exact opposite of your smear.

Rothbard Explains the Proper Response to Climate Change

*face palm* Did you read the article? It was not about climate change, but rather, private property rights as a framework for dealing with climate change.

The Civil War: Both Sides Were Wrong

Again, Did you read the article? Did you see “Civil War” and think that it was going to advocate for slavery? Just a little bit of knowledge about Libertarians and this wouldn’t have to happen. Are you so naive to think there were no other issues raised by the Civil War, issues that have nothing to do with race, slavery, etc?

Freedom of Want is Slavery for All

I assume you mean the article titled “‘Freedom FROM Want’ is Slavery for all”? (Caps mine).

Again, did you read it? Did it trigger you because it had the word “slavery” in the title? This actually has a lot to do with this thread. It talks about the differences between rights and entitlements and the economic consequences of that sort of socialist mindset. There is nothing wrong with this article. I can only assume you listed it as evidence of your accusations because you inferred something from the title. It does not prove any of your smears and goes a long way to show the exact opposite....

There seems to be a pattern forming.

The Confederate Constitution

*sigh* - Did you read any of the article? What did you think this article was advocating? Slavery? Ohhh, you saw the word “Confederate” and assumed? The pattern continues....

The Despot named Lincoln

*sigh*- Did you read the article? Did you think this was a pro-Confederate/pro-slavery article again? Remember, this is from a Libertarian site. Slavery is fundamentally an evil. Also, the Mises Institute, as mentioned, is very anti-war. This article discusses ways Lincoln could have ended slavery without war.

Social Security: The Most Successful Ponzi Scheme in History

Ha ha. Well, that’s true.

How FDR Made the Depression Worse

That’s true, he really did. To see why, you have to engage with the economic arguments and see past the first level of cause and effect, you have to actually grapple with arguments instead of emotional smears.

There are other articles where they feel there is no need for minimum wage, Public Education, rent control, and Medicare.

Yes, there are. So? These are economic topics. It’s an economics site. What does that have to do with your smears?

Two of the founders were Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. Rothbard has many kind things to say about the Confederacy, David Duke, and Joseph McCarthy.

So? You think he’s a racist? You think he aligns with David Duke? Is that the next smear? Good forking lord, he’s a Libertarian. You aren’t going to find a greater advocate for real rights than a Libertarian. But one thing that a principled stand on human rights is going to demand is that you stand up for the rights of the racists too. Do you understand what that means? And if you say “It means he agrees with David Duke or he’s a racist himself” then you have no forking clue.

Rockwell posts interesting papers on lewrockwell.com with the titles

Legalize Drunk Driving

The Vindication of Joe McCarthy

and (you should find this interesting, Simon!)

I leave it to you to actually read these articles and figure out why none of this has anything to do with your smears... I’ve gone through plenty.

Relativity and the Priesthood of Science

This is an article on Rockwell’s site, not mises.org, and not written by anyone I know... just some guy.

*sigh* Just step back a second and look at what’s going on - A famous economist, Person A, writes a treatise on why socialism will always fail. Person B gives a summary of that. Person C and person B are both economists of the same vein and know each other through an institute that has nothing to do with the article of Person A, in fact Person A is long dead. Person C has personal blog and gets anti-state, free market contributors. Person D contribute a few of those. Person D, a journalist, also writes a book about Person E’s, a physicist, thoughts on special relativity. Person D also writes similar content for Fortune, the New York Times Magazine, and The Atlantic Monthly.

Conclusion made by Spoletta - Person A’s argument should not even be entertained. Yet, I wonder if you also categorically reject the New York Times...

The guilt by association doesn’t work. It never does. It is a logical fallacy for a reason, and layering up the fallacies doesn’t make it magically logical.

Now, to the subject of Walter Block. You say he doesn't advocate the despicable things he discusses in Defending the Undefendable. That may be true. But, here's the truth of the matter. He truly believes that those ideas are correct, and that the world would be better if we followed them.

You realize you just contradicted yourself, right? When you assert “That may be true”, he doesn’t advocate these activities, you can’t simultaneously say he believes these ideas are correct. He believes the government should stay out of it, and that we can, and have, objectively measured the unintended consequences of intervention.

He is both a Libertarian and an Austrian Economist, as are Rothbard and Rockwell.

A fact. Holy forking shirt balls... a fact. We have a fact in the post.

He is also a pompous ass.

Oooops, another smear. And here I thought it was turning around.

If you care to hear his Libertarian blathering, go to YouTube and type Minority Report: Walter Block, and listen to what he has to say. I find him rude, arrogant and unable to answer simple questions. Of course, you might find him a font of wisdom.

Yeap, that’s why the videos are out there. Here let me help you out with that. A while back the SJWs came for him. He didn’t give in, and his college didn’t let the SJW bull shirt win either. He was provided a forum to address his accusations and take live questions. Here it is:

https://youtu.be/6EDykuMDLpM

These guys live in a fantasy world, where if everyone listened to them, we'd all play nice, and everyone would respect your personal and properly rights, we'd all band together and build roads and hospitals by pooling our resources, and no one would tell us what to do, or steal our money by making us help those who are lazy and undeserving, and if they die, so what? We're only responsible for ourselves.

And this is exactly why I’m frustrated. Everything you described above is the exact opposite of what free market capitalists believe. However, you have aptly described the socialist view. In the socialist world view, everyone is part of that collective, working hard, taking only what is needed, giving all that’s possible. There are collective roads, bridges, farms, and everyone is nice. Magically the entrepreneurship continues (the exact topic of Mises’ paper). A utopia.

Libertarians don’t think capitalism is superior out of some naive view of the world. It’s a realistic view in which people are not pawns you move around on a chess board. Yet, it’s a world with resource scarcity, human motivations, crime, bad actors, greed, selfishness, horrible climate, all of which has, historically, caused tremendous pain and suffering. As Milton Friedman used to say: Utopia is not for this world.

You assume capitalism needs these things not to exist in order to function. The reality is that it works because these imperfections exist, and it is the algorithm that minimizes them.

So, if you wonder why I wouldn't believe anything I hear on YouTube from Joe Salerno of the Mises Institute, this is just a sampling. The world they envision would be a horrible one, where the worst of us would rise to the top, and we'd end up with Kings and serfs, like the good old days.

*sigh* - Hayek wrote a book titled “The Road to Serfdom.” Based on your track record here, perhaps you might want to consider that the pattern still holds: you’ve got it exactly backwards.

40

Flat Earth Jw and Galileo Galilei

by Earthmeasured in

in the image you can see what jw wrote about how galileo was treated by the catholic church.

now they are disfelloshipping me because i believe the earth is flat.

is this coherent?.

MeanMrMustard

@earthmeasured: Do you think we have an accurate measurement of the earth’s radius - that is the distance from one end of the circle to the “central” point?

Also, I missed the flat earth scriptures in the Bible. Can you post them?

40

Flat Earth Jw and Galileo Galilei

by Earthmeasured in

in the image you can see what jw wrote about how galileo was treated by the catholic church.

now they are disfelloshipping me because i believe the earth is flat.

is this coherent?.

MeanMrMustard

OMG, getting popcorn.

121

What Are Your Rights?

by Simon in

jw
friends

rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.

say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.

people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.

MeanMrMustard

I stand by my statement. Any serious examination of all the material I've presented is there for anyone who does more than cursory research.

What material have you presented? You’ve presented accusations. I was hoping for sources to those claims - especially your claim that the Mises Institute doesn’t believe in the theory of relativity.

Some of my conclusions come from reading articles that the Institute has published.

Yeah. Which ones?

Walter Block has written on every topic I mentioned, and you can hear him espouse them on Youtube, and in his book Defending the Indefensible.

Ok, finally you mention a source. His book is “Defending the Undefendable”. He uses the incorrect word intentionally. And here is where context matters. In the book he defends activities normally outlawed, he does not advocate for them. Remember, he is an anarchist, and here is a very important distinction that gets lost when you don’t consider the context: there is a big difference between advocating/endorsing activities and arguing for government non-intervention concerning those activities. As with many government interventions, when you consider the NET effects, you find out that the intervention caused more problems than it solved.

An example: I don’t think drugs should be illegal. I believe that you own your body and if you want to do drugs, you shouldn’t be locked up for that choice (bringing it back rights, this is based on private property rights). Does that mean I think people should do drugs? No. The government intervention into personal free choice in this regard causes negative side effects. Families are torn apart (especially in the case of minor pot offenses) and trillions are wasted fighting drug cartels that owe their existence to black markets created by the very same drug laws. On NET, society is losing by having drug laws. Does that mean I think we should go grab a few rocks of crack? No.

Another example: The left these days is keen on hate speech laws. They don’t want people to say racist words. I think you should be able to say racist words all you want. Does that mean I think you should use racist words? No. But if you want to be an asshole, then fine. Laws against speech would only drive the racists underground, and soon we would find other innocent speech being banned because it would be “hateful” to whatever political group happens to be in power at the time. Again, on NET society is worse off.

Those are perfectly valid things to consider, Spoletta.

Austrian Economics is merely another philosophy among many, and like Libertarianism, disagrees with other's ideas, and considers itself the true standard bearer of correct economics.

More dismissals. Ignore any arguments and logical reasoning that might come out of Austrian school because.... well, it’s just like all the rest, one among many, nothing to see here.

Austrian Economics is separate from Libertarianism. The former is a model of how economies function, the basic principles of an economy. The later is political.

Being a proponent of that philosophy, and by his association with the Mise Institute, I would assume that he shares many of it's views, so I choose to take anything he says with skepticism.

You are conflating skepticism with throwing steaming piles of bovine excrement.

121

What Are Your Rights?

by Simon in

jw
friends

rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.

say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.

people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.

MeanMrMustard

Joe Salerno is associated with the Mise Institute, a right wing think tank partially funded by the Koch Brothers.

And this is where I stopped paying attention. Literally, as soon as I read this sentence, I knew the rest of the post was going to be full or crap.

And then I continued reading. I have to admit I underestimated just how much completely fabricated shit you were willing to spew. This is exactly what happened in the race/IQ thread a few months back. Ignore arguments and smear. I go off and research the smear claims, because I’m genuinely interested in being intellectually honest. Hours pass and I realize it’s all made up or taken out of context ...

Not that what you posted has anything to do with the arguments made in the presentation. The video in on an article Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1920. Nothing in the video has anything to do with any of your claims... but you just want to dismiss arguments without engaging, and send me on a wild goose chase to verify or disprove your smears.

I’m not taking any of those claims seriously. In fact, I would like you to produce sources for these claims. I’m definitely not going down the rabbit hole of attempting to disprove them. You made the claims - back them up with sources in context.

The in context part is important.

You reference Walter Block. I’ve heard statements directly from his mouth that contradict your claims. Walter is an anarcho-capitalist, and on many things, I disagree with him.

But that’s the point. Your post has nothing to do with the arguments, made by anyone. Just fling shit around and hope someone will fall for the guilt by association fallacy .... even though the guilt associated is probably pulled out your ass, or some left-wing paste bin.

George Carlin is one of my favorite comedians, and though his humour is often very insightful, sometimes it's just very funny, and tells us things we enjoy hearing, whether they're true or not. A hysterically funny opinion is still just an opinion. So, on the whole, I don't feel your arguments are very compelling. Sorry.

I like Carlin’s comedy too. What does that have to do with any argument made?

121

What Are Your Rights?

by Simon in

jw
friends

rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.

say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.

people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.

MeanMrMustard

No, real rights remain rights, the government can violate those rights, not take them away. The government is guilty all day every day if it does so. There is no acceptable scenario where the government denies someone their rights.

Yes, you are correct. I did not form my statement in an accurate way. The way you put it, above, is much more accurate. I agree.

If you create a system where people can live comfortably doing diddly squat, then why would they work? ....

I agree with all of that. However, the purpose of Mises’ article (Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth), detailed in that video, was to remove incentives from the argument entirely. I am not sure if you watched any of it, notwithstanding Spoletta’s smear campaign, but around 1920, when the article was written, the incentive argument was pretty much the only objection. The socialists were countering that a “new socialist man” would emerge if we could just convert the economy. The new socialist man would buy into the scheme completely and wouldn’t be subject to their previous “nature”.

Mises granted them their premise, and then showed that it didn’t matter. Socialism would destroy prices because private property and voluntary exchange would end. Without prices, you can’t figure out how to allocate resources. There would be no entrepreneurship, and any decision concerning resource usage would be arbitrary. Would you use the steel to build tractors or carrot juicers?

Mises’ whole point was that you bump up against raw resource reality. It doesn’t matter if you buy into socialism or not. You can take all of the capitalists out to the fields and kill them... doesn’t matter. The economy is doomed. You must have real prices produced by real interactions, voluntary interactions, and true private ownership.

Also, we get a glimpse into partial socialism. China kept Hong Kong capitalist in order to reference the prices. The Soviet Union produced black markets between manufacturers, and started to lift prices from the Sears catalog. The point being that the prosperity an economy experiences is directly proportional to its market freedom. The more socialistic an industry gets, the more and more it will experience these price distortions and resource allocation problems.

Hayek came around later and expanded on it with the knowledge problem.

This is all on top of the incentive issue - which is a very real problem too.

121

What Are Your Rights?

by Simon in

jw
friends

rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.

say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.

people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.

MeanMrMustard

There has never been a truly Socialist country

Just to note: if you watch that presentation I posted by Joe Salerno, he documents a time in the Soviet Union’s history when they tried pure socialism. It lasted for about two weeks. All calculation broke down and the population was reduced to maurading bands of looters burning whatever they could find for warmth.

To fight against lack of calculation, they would order the Sears catalog...

121

What Are Your Rights?

by Simon in

jw
friends

rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.

say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.

people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.

MeanMrMustard

I’m just getting caught up on the thread.

There is a general conflation between rights and entitlements. I think another conflation happens here:

From George Carlin: Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, shxt like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, "where do they come from?" People say, "They come from God. They're God given rights." Awww fxxx, here we go again...here we go again.

Putting aside this was said for comedy, if you really take this viewpoint seriously, you would be conflating the non-existence of human rights with the ability of a tyrant to take them away.

Ask yourself: Is slavery wrong? If yes, then why? We reject slavery now because it violates property rights. In this case it is the right of ownership of your body. If you think, seriously, that only government could grant that right, then you would have no moral objection to government sanctioned slavery. If the government were to proclaim that you report to the killing fields for termination, for the greater good of course, would you just shrug and say, “Oh well, I don’t really have a right to not have my life forcefully taken away.” ?

Carlin is correct that governments can take away rights. They can kill you, muzzle you, enslave you. But that doesn’t imply the non existence of these rights. Rather, it just implies that you are being ruled by a tyrant.

Finally, many Libertarians are atheists. You don’t need God to argue for human rights.

The government should create an environment where people are free to chose to become doctors, surgeons, farmers and so on with the incentives for some to follow that path but if they decide to dictate that people provide those services then that is denying those people their freedom.

I would like to bolster your point with one thought. The incentive problem is a large issue when it comes to socializing an economy. But the calculation problem is rarely addressed. I have, in the past, posted a link to a presentation on Mises’ calculation problem. I’ll post in again below. It is important because the socialist has to contend with raw calculation - or lack thereof. Even if you assume somehow human nature could be changed and a “new socialist man” created, the economy would soon bump up against raw reality. The economy would not be able to calculate the right allocation of scarce resources. The closer you get to a pure socialist economy, the faster the demise. We saw this with the darling Scandinavian counties. They were highly capitalistic. Built up a lot of capital and then turned to a more socialist “balance”. They’ve had to back away from that in recent years because they were headed for ruin. How do you get a small fortune while being socialist? Answer: start out with a large fortune and squander it.

https://youtu.be/KseRuyAjlHY

How did she die and why? Why didn't she have better health insurance? Why wasn't she healthier? Why didn't she have any money to get better health insurance?

Agreed! But to add to this, a question rarely asked ... if ever: Why is it so expensive in the first place? And it’s not “because good quality care is expensive.” The care is getting worse and more expensive each year. I propose we are seeing the socialist results right before our eyes: as more of any industry comes under government control, or heavy regulation, as the price system is undermined, the economy can’t calculate properly. We get cheap prices and good quality in every other industry, but somehow health is excluded from these market forces because.... well.... reasons.

It’s not just confined to health now. Food, education... all inflating and becoming poorer in quality for exactly the same reasons.