I'll start with this faggot and his creation, Autism: The Ideology.
I remember when I was growing up my mum watched talk shows in which he appeared. Even as a 9 year old I thought "wait this is it? THAT's your explanation for it?". I forgot about him for like 10 years but then I started to be interested in philosophy again. The guy is literally the emperor in new clothes of (German) philosophy. Fuck him. Good thing my professors and Zizek keep making fun about hi.
>mfw he seriously proposed stop any taxation so rich people could donate more and directly
I still have no idea whether lolbertarians are born retarded or they undergo unsanctioned lobotomies later in life.
>i hate big corporations
>so imma let them rule everything
Jesus Christ, that's 1984-tier doublethink
Arguing with lolbertarians is absolutely pointless. I'd rather just shitpost
>Policy however requires some amount of prudence.
It's not that it requires prudence. It's more that utility is more effective than dreams of ideals.
It's way easier to tax people than it is to hope that they have philanthropic ideals.
It's clearly not practical to just sit around waiting for rich people to be nice to their fellow man, because judging from history and experience that's the opposite of what happens.
>iberterianism is airtight in theory
You need to check out what theory means senpaitachi. I agree though compared to Marxism iberterianism has one big advantage: if it fails it blame individuals, the government etc. Marxist (in power) who fail can only blame themselves and their ideology.
Maybe. I won't read it though.
I don't think private charity, nor government welfare does any of those things in the long run.
The only thing that actually can help people is educating them, not giving them handouts. This is regardless of whether or not the handout comes from the government or a charity.
>You need to check out what theory means senpaitachi. I agree though compared to Marxism iberterianism has one big advantage: if it fails it blame individuals, the government etc. Marxist (in power) who fail can only blame themselves and their ideology.
It takes into account more variables than Marxism, especially Marxism in its more politicized form (i.e. Marxism Leninism). I'm speaking from a purely theoretical point of view, it relies on a more sophisticated view of human psychology and epistemology.
No, arguing with a lolbertarian IS pointless.
If you still belief in lib principles then you have no political power anywhere. It'd be like kicking a sick dog lol.
They belong in the same pile of trashed ideas like creationists, flat earthers and homeopathics and racialists. If you can work out why lib is stupid then that's YOUR problem, not mine, to cure yourself from.
Lolbertarians are just as fucking shit-tier as naziboos/fascists. Well, not quite, since I can at least see a fascist state functioning, while a libertarian state is like trying to make soup in a sieve.
>If you still belief in lib principles then you have no political power anywhere.
That is wrong though. Take Friedman for example. He at least wants to enable people to make CHOICES. So he defends a government that can enact justice, education and security.
Many people who believe in libertarian principles have political power.
But what you're thinking about is Ayn Rand-tier extreme laissez-faire thinking, which is of course the fringe of the fringe.
Not many communists have political power in the world either, but many people who base their worldview on the same kind of thinking i.e social-democrats do have a lot of power.
I choose to shitpost until you fags leave.
Nah m9-1, I'm a /tv/ and /sp/ crossposter. And way to misrepresent what I said you fucking tard. Your reasoning is so close to a /pol/ack's I'm thinking you're the stormfag
>actively bashing the right-wing
>I can see a fascist state functioning
hate Friedman but if you can't uphold so basic principles of a civilized discussion maybe you shouldn't talk about shit posting.
>I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R.' And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle.
He even advocated the legalization of (certain) drugs. How he is not a libertarian?
Friedman is fucking dead. He cannot exert any political power in front of the supreme court, congress etc because he's a corpse.
All we have left are his neophytes that are easily dismissed.
I though the point was that libertarian are completely against holding political power. Guess I misread. I still would argue that in terms of economic thinking the Zeitgeist is soaked with libertarian ideas. Take for example the Hartz IV reforms in Germany. It was never proven they had ANY positive effect on the job market. Still every party except the socialist party defends the reforms since they meant less welfare for the unemployed.
I guess Ron Paul misread too.
Germany's problems imo are because they are simply misinterpreting the data.
Economics shouldn't be, but it is, one of the most ideologically driven sciences out there.
Literally a marketeer for the Catholic Church, his method consisted of 'proving' what he had already concluded as true and assuming linear causality as some kind of obvious truism, even though we now know it isn't.
Thank goodness for Hume, who singlehandedly saved philosophy from this con artist
As far as I know the theoretical underpinning of the reform was introduced by sociologists like Ulrich Beck, who endorse some kind of liberal communitarianism. The idea is not just to provide social support (or cut it) but to integrate the unemployed in society by means other than work, such as volunteering.
This is how Beck depicts it (I assume you read German?):
„freiwilliges gesellschaftliches Engagement, das projektgebunden (und damit zeitlich begrenzt) in kooperativen, selbstorganisierten Arbeitsformen unter der Regie eines Gemeinwohl-Unternehmers autorisiert, abgestimmt mit dem (kommunalen) Ausschuß für Bürgerarbeit ausgeschrieben, beraten und durchgeführt wird. Bürgerarbeit wird nicht entlohnt, aber belohnt und zwar immateriell (durch Qualifikationen, Ehrungen, die Anerkennung von Rentenansprüchen und Sozialzeiten, ‚Favor Credits‘ etc.). Materiell erhalten diejenigen ein Bürgergeld, die hierauf existentiell angewiesen sind. Die Maßstäbe sind die gleichen wie bei der Gewährung von Sozialhilfe; deshalb können die erforderlichen Mittel aus den Haushalten der Sozialhilfe und gegebenenfalls der Arbeitslosenhilfe entnommen werden. Jedoch, die Bezieher von Bürgergeld sind – bei sonst gleichen Voraussetzungen – keine Empfänger von Sozial- oder Arbeitslosenhilfe, da sie in Freiwilligen-Initiativen gemeinnützig tätig sind. Auch stehen sie dem Arbeitsmarkt nicht zur Verfügung, wenn sie das nicht wünschen. Sie sind keine Arbeitslosen.“
Yeah close to what I meant. but as far as I can see what you quoted talks only about obligatory work which is but one aspect of the reforms.
The way they were communicated to the people (and still are) was somewhat different though. They told people that one tries less (hard) getting a job if one gets more welfare than he would get as a salary. Therefore people would (magically) find jobs faster if you cut there money exposing them to the free labor market. There was not a single study verifying the assumption in over 10 years after the reforms but several suggesting that people value you things like social interaction at the working place so high that they would work even if they would get more money on welfare.
I admit my main source for this is the WSI Mitteilungsblatt but it is a proper academic journals so I trust them to tell only limited lies.
Nonconditional direct cash transfers have been shown to be very effective in areas with high poverty rates, and extremely cheap to implement. So, actually, just handing money out does work.
They don't need to because linear causality isn't taken seriously anymore. Pic related is one of the main reasons why
I'd be more than happy to debunk your meme pic, but there's nothing to debunk
There was need of some brilliant genius to shit on his arguments? Jesus Christ, all of them are so childish and dumb people would look at you funny if you brought them up in conversation.
The only reason they stayed up for so long is because of the cultural zeitgeist in which you couldn't criticize him without also slandering the Holy See, but right now they seem more like something a child would write.
You'd be surprised how influential his ideas still are to this day. Many people might not believe in the Five Ways, but they still believe in the clockwork universe, even though both stem from the same source and are equally nonsensical
>OK von Mises, enlighten us. Not really, don't, nobody gives a fuck about your fringe failed-economics retardation.
>t. liberal capitalist
I'm not a libritarian in the slightest but you're circle jerking about some fat faggot on TV and going "HURR ALL LOLBRITARIANS ARE RETARDED RIGHT?"
So why are you all buttblasted about this shit if you aren't? Like Jesus Christ nigga, lighten the fuck up
Lurk more new friend
Are you fucking retarded? No shitting around, give me an actual example of linear causality that proves The Big Man exists. I'm not debating His existence, I'm saying Aquinas is a moron by modern standards.
Linear causality can be thrown out of the window once you introduce the idea of sensibility to initial conditions. This basically makes inferring one cause and one consequence of that cause completely impossible. Chaos theory is build around this notion, and it's why we, for instance, can't predict exactly what the weather will be like for next week. The further in time you go, the less accurate your predictions become
dude apocatastasis lmao
Also matter doesn't actually exist and we all return to God when we die but I'm not a pantheist guys honest ;^)
The only needed response to aquinas is that no justification has ever been given for passing from empirical observation of the sensible world (causality, etc.) to statements about things that transcend the sensible world. There's no good reason to expect that things in 'the beyond' behave in any way similar to things in the sensible world, so any argument that moves from empirical observation to the existence of a God must be interpreted one of two ways:
(1) God is an element of the sensible world
(2) God is not an element of the sensible world
In the case of (2), the argument is not sound and we have no need to accept it, and in (1), an element of the sensible world could only be called God through some kind of sophistry, or else God is just meant to be the universe and Thomists state over and over that they don't think this is true (for good reason--it's stupid)
>this way, corrupt corps have no way of preventing competition from smaller, more thoughtful businesses.
It's called a cartel. The diamond industry has been doing it. Or they could corrupt the gov. directly and bend it to their will, or simply overthrow it, as the business plot tried to do.
Think about causality on a scale from micro to macro. Macro incorporates a wider range and set of intial conditions that can be extrapolated to be a causal factor, eg high sugar intake to type 2 diabetes. But as you become more granular, more towards micro, the Marco assumption of cause starts fracturing so in the case of the example genetic factors, gut microbes, and physiology at the person to person leave. This makes linear causality breakdown as there are numerous and varied weighting to initial conditions that cannot all be accounted for to output a cause-effect relationship.
>Cartels break down.
Or not. We've actually been assisting to a massive centralisation of markets under umbrella companies with lots of different brands in recent years, buying all the new-comers outright. And no, you can't blame the state for a monopoly of sunglasses(Luxxotica), laptops(Quanta) or internet porn(MindGeek).
What i mean is, simply because the free market isn't influenced by the state, doesn't mean it will run like the neat theoretical model from economy textbooks, and won't coagulate into a oligopoly/monopoly.
I was going to shit my pants due to the overwhelming righteous fury I'd feel if someone talked hit on my philosoboo.
I knew this board was filled my knights of faith. I love you guys. Even those of you that unironically like Plato, Nietzsche, or that autistic fuck Hegel.
Ayn Rand is not bad, although Objectivism is complete shit. The only reason I say not bad is because of the straight-forwardness and literary adeptness which she uses to describe her philosophy. She makes it so easy to understand and uses almost none of the standard philosophical vocabulary of other philosophers, and whenever she does say something higher-brow (rare for Rand lel) it is defined.
Therefore, many people get their start in philosophy with Rand, leading them to bigger and better things in their "travels".
I'm not saying it's only high-schoolers who unironically like Rand, but when I was a high-schooler, I unironically liked Rand.
>not realizing Kierkegaard is pretty much 100% compatible with atheism, not realizing he uses the bible in such an allegorical fashion that none of it matters if it literally happens. Just replace the word "god" with "the forces that move the world" and he makes perfect sense.
If you don't like the sky daddy take his lessons about faith and put it in something else.
>not being a knight of faith and an ubermench at the same time!
Of all the philosophers, and of all Christian philosophers, you want to shit on Kierkegaard? For being religious? May as well bitch at Nietzche about "muh Christianity" while you're at it, makes as much sense.
Actually he was
>Dude the only true freedom is to accept that we are all ultimately selfish