/liberty/ - Liberty

Nice strawmen, retard

>>16363

So you're telling me that he's really just criticizing a strawman? Gotta say, from my experience, what he says is spot-on.

>The socialists had a certain kind of logic on their side: if the collective sacrifice of all to all is the moral ideal, then they wanted to establish this ideal in practice, here and on this earth. The arguments that socialism would not and could not work, did not stop them: neither has altruism ever worked, but this has not caused men to stop and question it. Only reason can ask such questions—and reason, they were told on all sides, has nothing to do with morality, morality lies outside the realm of reason, no rational morality can ever be defined.

>The fallacies and contradictions in the economic theories of socialism were exposed and refuted time and time again, in the Nineteenth Century as well as today. This did not and does not stop anyone: it is not an issue of economics, but of morality. The intellectuals and the so-called idealists were determined to make socialism work. How? By that magic means of all irrationalists: somehow.

>The Communists’ chief purpose is to destroy every form of independence—independent work, independent action, independent property, independent thought, an independent mind, or an independent man. Conformity, alikeness, servility, submission and obedience are necessary to establish a Communist slave-state.

>It is the Communists’ intention to make people think that personal success is somehow achieved at the expense of others and that every successful man has hurt somebody by becoming successful. It is the Communists’ aim to discourage all personal effort and to drive men into a hopeless, dispirited, gray herd of robots who have lost all personal ambition, who are easy to rule, willing to obey and willing to exist in selfless servitude to the State.

>If America perishes, it will perish by intellectual default. There is no diabolical conspiracy to destroy it: no conspiracy could be big enough and strong enough . . . . As to the communist conspirators in the service of Soviet Russia, they are the best illustration of victory by default: their successes are handed to them by the concessions of their victims.

>When men share the same basic premise, it is the most consistent ones who win. So long as men accept the altruist morality, they will not be able to stop the advance of communism. The altruist morality is Soviet Russia’s best and only weapon.

>The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher.

>It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.

>Now there is one word—a single word—which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand—the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthlyreason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.

>It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it—or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists—and few of their victims—realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible.

>The social theory of ethics substitutes “society” for God—and although it claims that its chief concern is life on earth, it is not the life of man, not the life of an individual, but the life of a disembodied entity, the collective, which, in relation to every individual, consists of everybody except himself. As far as the individual is concerned, his ethical duty is to be the selfless, voiceless, rightless slave of any need, claim or demand asserted by others. The motto “dog eat dog”—which is not applicable to capitalism nor to dogs—is applicable to the social theory of ethics. The existential monuments to this theory are Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

>In the 1930’s, the “liberals” had a program of broad social reforms and a crusading spirit, they advocated a planned society, they talked in terms of abstract principles, they propounded theories of a predominantly socialistic nature—and most of them were touchy about the accusation that they were enlarging the government’s power; most of them were assuring their opponents that government power was only a temporary means to an end—a “noble end,” the liberation of the individual from his bondage to material needs.

>Today, nobody talks of a planned society in the “liberal” camp; long-range programs, theories, principles, abstractions, and “noble ends” are not fashionable any longer. Modern “liberals” deride any political concern with such large-scale matters as an entire society or an economy as a whole; they concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands, without regard to cost, context, or consequences. “Pragmatic”—not “idealistic”—is their favorite adjective when they are called upon to justify their “stance,” as they call it, not “stand.” They are militantly opposed to political philosophy; they denounce political concepts as “tags,” “labels,” “myths,” “illusions”—and resist any attempt to “label”—i.e., to identify—their own views. They are belligerently anti-theoretical and—with a faded mantle of intellectuality still clinging to their shoulders—they are anti-intellectual. The only remnant of their former “idealism” is a tired, cynical, ritualistic quoting of shopworn “humanitarian” slogans, when the occasion demands it.

>Cynicism, uncertainty, and fear are the insignia of the culture which they are still dominating by default. And the only thing that has not rusted in their ideological equipment, but has grown savagely brighter and clearer through the years, is their lust for power—for an autocratic, statist, totalitarian government power. It is not a crusading brightness, it is not the lust of a fanatic with a mission—it is more like the glassy-eyed brightness of a somnambulist whose stuporous despair has long since swallowed the memory of his purpose, but who still clings to his mystic weapon in the stubborn belief that “there ought to be a law,” that everything will be all right if only somebody will pass a law, that every problem can be solved by the magic power of brute force.

>A [second-hander] is one who regards the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to a [second-hander] that the moral appraisal of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason, logic. The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan’s moral sanction. It is only a [second-hander] who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: “But people won’t like you!”

>>16407

>I can't really tell you since I was only ever a National Socialist in the past and not a full blown commie,

pretty close, both in ideology and the idiot spectrum.

>but typically it spawns from either an authoritarian desire for power (private property challenges their desire for power), or a communal desire for "equality" that can only be achieved by socialism.

No, it stems from the need to have someone else tell you what to do, and to give up the responsibility of thinking.

> Keep in mind the high percentage of NEETs and Liberal Arts majors who support socialism, who have failed horribly under the system of Capitalism because they couldn't properly market their skills. Under socialism, they can claim their worth to society and demands for free "free" education for simply existing rather than by creating wealth/implying a contract to create wealth with their newfound knowledge.

k

>imblying they have "newfound knowledge"

>What they fail to realize is you can fully support Capitalism with the stipulation of a Universal Basic Income via flat-rate consumption taxes,

fuck no, your idiocy is showing.

> and never have to really touch socialism at all.

confirmed for speaking out of your ass

>How can a bunch of NEETs and Liberal Arts majors (a number of which believe in ochlocracy… Er… Sorry, "democracy" mob rule)

>democracy=mob rule

only when the gubmint has more funtions than the protection of private property, individual rights and the courts and armed forces.

There can be no laws that allow some people to take away the rights of others. That is what is happening right now and this is why people say democracy doesn't work. It does, but only in a closed system where the powers of the government are highly restricted.

> produce the wealth they need for socialism? Indoctrinated/guilt tripped STEM folks will only get them so far, so you've gotta force hard-working individuals to do the work for them somehow they fail to realize that most people who work hard are motivated by profit- either for them or for their families. If these non-socialist, but intelligent/skilled individuals won't do it with their own hands, using taxes to create an incentive to do it/to pay others to do it is the next best option. After all, they couldn't claim the moral high ground if they held technicians like me at gunpoint in order to accomplish their goals.

>moral high ground

>implying your definition of moral is correct

>implying they care

>>16415

Democracy only works in a Republic where officials are only elected by property owners.

And even then I use the term "works" loosely.

>>16385

>>16386

>>16387

Nice. Is that out of "The Virtue of Selfishness"?

>>16415

Pretty dumb post tbh smh fam

>>16417

>Nice. Is that out of "The Virtue of Selfishness"?

No, from many different books.

>>16445

Ah apologies. I should namefag for the sake of the AnCaps on this board who agree or disagree with my positions.

>>16416

yes, but you're ignoring the role of the government in this example.

>>16445

>UBI

>better than welfare

>"would make the commies shut up"

Muting them should not be a goal of this at all; If you go out and compromise it'll only hurt your cause in the long-term. It's better to push for the removal of a welfare state and mandatory taxes than it is to push for UBI, because then you are only giving credence to their argument, however small.

Also, in a system with UBI, innovation is zero. People who produce get robbed big time and the people who do nothing get money for free (not that that is ever possible). There's no incentive to work, unless you're in bed with the government, and if you are, then you're fucked anyway. It's an advanced state to the establishment of a totalitarian state.

>>16458

It's not a compromise in their favor, it's a compromise in our favor.

We already have a full-blown welfare state that's continuing to expand. UBI would make them more reliant on their own work, and thus increase the chances of further whittling away at welfare in the future.

>>16458

>Also, in a system with UBI, innovation is zero. People who produce get robbed big time and the people who do nothing get money for free (not that that is ever possible)

Pretty sure that's been disproven, but I'll look around and get back to you on that.

>There's no incentive to work

UBI doesn't give you an iPod and a laptop- it usually just covers rent. Sometimes it covers utilities and some food. There's plenty of an incentive to work if you want to live comfortably, UBI is just an alternative safety net that doesn't give neo-liberals and socialists the opportunity to bitch about people dying in the streets (at least to not be taken seriously).

As for crime rates… Well, there's mixed results with UBI- some studies show increases while some show decreases.

By basing it on consumption tax, it's based on something tangible rather than income.

>>16407

>Indoctrinated/guilt tripped STEM folks

STEM-fag here (Electronics), those of us who actually get shit done (ie. not Climate 'Scientists' or other government gravy train recipients) are mostly Libertarian (although many have never heard the name Libertarian).

In other words, those guilt tripped STEM folks aren't the ones who actually improve society and are of no use to socialists.

>>16445

You picture ignores fractional reserve banking whereby bankers create money out of thin air and give it to themselves.

>>16473

Yeah, I should have specified that it's not the plurality that are like that.

Unfortunately the indoctrinated ones seem to get the loudest voices in the media.

>>16479

Fractional Reserve Banking isn't an issue. It's actually extremely efficient, and allows for additional wealth creation/innovation much faster when used properly (within the limitations as a fraction of your total reserves).

It's a centralized and government-backed fractional reserve bank that causes issues and allows bankers to create money out of thin air.

>>16480

>Fractional Reserve Banking isn't an issue. It's actually extremely efficient, and allows for additional wealth creation/innovation much faster when used properly (within the limitations as a fraction of your total reserves).

I guess I don't want to quibble over the word "properly" but it certainly has ruined the economy of the USA and allowed billionaire bankers to literally rob the working classes of their wealth.

FYI: I am a successful entrepreneur, and I have first hand experience when it comes to how fractional reserve banking is essentially legalized theft that empowers oligarchs of the do-nothing class and enables the corruption of democratic institutions.

You could argue that your own theoretical implementation would solve these problems, but this isn't the system we have.

>>16484

I used to know of an excellent comic book that explained it without any of the economic mess.

The whole point of a bank is to make loans in order to see increased returns. They couldn't stay in business if all they did was put money in the bank.

Fractional Reserve Banking is just a method in which you loan out a fractional percentage of your total holdings in excess of expected returns. When done sustainably in a smaller bank ~1-7% of holdings it's fine. The reason it's the legalized theft clusterfuck it is right now is solely due to the central authority that the government has granted the bank("s")/the federal reserve.

In traditional markets, if a bank is stupid enough to lend out too much, it fails.

>>16498

tl;dr- It's the billionaire bankers and the politicians colluding that make fractional reserve banking fail, not the system itself.

>>16498

I don't understand why people have such a huge problem with fractional reserve banking. Fuck, anything's better than the current federal system. Competition between currencies seems like a great idea. If the current federal monopoly didn't exist, everybody would have switched to alternatives by now.

>>16498

>>16502

Ugh I don't want to get into this, but fine. Here goes my sincere rant that will immediately get trolled:

So I own a small software company. We sometimes do contract work when a larger company wants to bring on subject knowledge experts in our field. We have our own products that are much larger payoffs but riskier to bring to market. We are entirely self-sufficient between these revenue streams, but it's tough to run a business.

Now let me tell you about how fractional reserve banking works.

Meet Bob. Bob is a young guy who wants to make the next big *whatever.* Social site, app, he doesn't care. His goal is simply to make millions or billions of dollars.

Bob used to work as an investment banker, but he currently isn't a millionaire and has no software skills. Bob does have friends. And that's what matters.

One day Bob goes to his investment banker friends and says "can you write me a loan for 1 million dollars for my project.." His friends say sure, no problem Bob. But wait… they don't have the money either. If they had the money to give him and it was their money I wouldn't have a problem.

So where does that 1 million dollars come from? Well, they pull out their pens and write a check and at that very moment the money is brought into existence! Not without a cost, though. Every dollar that is created this way devalues all existing dollars by the same amount – we call this "inflation."

So Bob's friends create a million dollars out of thin air and give it to Bob. In return Bob promises them 30% of the profits of his venture. Bob gets the other 70% – that's his. He earned it. Bob then uses the money to hire workers to make whatever type of app is trending. He of course pays himself a princely sum as a salary. And his investment banker friends – they get a cut too straight into their pockets. If the venture fails, nobody cares. It wasn't his money. It wasn't his investor's money. It was money that never existed.

But the people doing the actual work, creating the actual value – they get a meager paycheck, and nothing from the profits.

Now you might say "well that's the fault of the workers, they should negotiate a better salary!" Guess what, the economy sucks… and whose fault is that?… the very same investment bankers who write themselves checks and create money out of thin air that depreciates everyone else's money just a little bit.

This is morally wrong. It is exploitation by the "creating money out of thin air class" of everyone else. You know why the country is 17 trillion dollars in debt? Because bankers write themselves checks! That was how the bailout occurred – the Federal government approved the bankers writing themselves a check for trillions of dollars. Inventing that money, and making everyone else poorer in the process.

And you know what else sucks? I don't have investment banker friends. But I have to compete with people in my industry that can invent money at will and use their financial power to hold the labor market hostage.

No wonder the rich get richer. Who can compete with people licensed by the government to invent money and pay themselves?

And you know why software today sucks? Because it's not being made by the free market. It's being made by people like Bob. And they are not techies. They don't give a shit. They just want a way to take their invented 1 million dollars and turn it into 100 million dollars.. for themselves. And then talk about how they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. And if they fail, they'll just write themselves another bailout check.

All due to the magic of fractional reserve banking. Where honest folk have to compete with corporations who can call their banker friends to invent infinite money (depreciating the value of everyone else's money, that was actually earned through labor) and buy their way out of any problem. This is the oligarchy. You can either invent money, or you can be poor.

>>16472

>Profit is Subjective (if it means something else than it actually means)

Nice meme picture.

>>16473

As a STEM-fag, what do you think about global warming? Any good sources you could recommend? We had a few threads about that, but to the best of my knowledge, they went nowhere and mostly dealt with the ethical and political aspects of climate change, not the scientific.

>>16483

This about sums it up.

>>16504

>Who can compete with people licensed by the government to invent money and pay themselves?

Yeah. This is the problem with fractional reserve banking, not the practice itself. Without government intervention, the banks' ability to produce new currency is checked by the willingness of consumers to accept that currency. In a market with competing currencies, the banks take a loss when they mis-manage their currency supply, because all the currency holders have the option to stop using said currency in favor of stronger ones.

>>16520

>(if it means something else than it actually means)

Do you honestly mean to assert that "profit" refers strictly to increases in financial holdings? Have you consulted a dictionary? It may colloquially be used to imply "monetary profit", but this is an expedient, used because numbers are much easier to discuss; businesses aren't persons, so they don't have preferences, so some intersubjective standard (currency) must be used to discuss their profits.

>>16466

>>16465

either use your name, or don't.

It's a compromise in OUR favor, retard, because we're the ones paying the bills. Plus, your life is not a mortgage on someone else's. You fuckers are just advocating communism as long as you don't call it that.

>>16504

Plus, you're stealing from people if you write yourself a check for a billion imaginary dollars and then legalize it.

>>16520

>what is contextual profit

smh tbh fam

>>16466

>>16465

either use your name, or don't.

It's a compromise in OUR favor, retard, because we're the ones paying the bills. Plus, your life is not a mortgage on someone else's. You fuckers are just advocating communism as long as you don't call it that.

>>16504

Plus, you're stealing from people if you write yourself a check for a billion imaginary dollars and then legalize it.

>>16520

>what is contextual profit

smh tbh fam

>>16466

>>16465

either use your name, or don't.

It's a compromise in OUR favor, retard, because we're the ones paying the bills. Plus, your life is not a mortgage on someone else's. You fuckers are just advocating communism as long as you don't call it that.

>>16504

Plus, you're stealing from people if you write yourself a check for a billion imaginary dollars and then legalize it.

>>16520

>what is contextual profit

smh tbh fam

>>16523

>As a STEM-fag, what do you think about global warming?

Unless it's his field, he's as clueless as you, m8

>>16541

>what is contextual profit

Irrelevant.

>>16541

also notice that it's contextual profit, and not profit

>>16499

>>16498

In fractional reserve banking what gives money value is not precious medals (gold, silver) but debt. It is created out of nothing but simply made through bank loans. The only thing that holds fractional reserve currency together is faith that what amounts to worthless paper will be accepted. Therefore fractional reserve banking is very unstable, inevitably will collapse, and perpetuates wage slavery to pay off loans. In fractional reserve banking most people must be in debt or it can't function.

>>16523

>As a STEM-fag, what do you think about global warming?

Not my field since I do electronics, but if you were paying attention to the quotation marks I put around the word following 'Climate' then you probably would have guessed my position.

You should always be skeptical of people who don't publish their data and methods and have a financial incentive to lie to you.

I don't know how well received Molyneux is here since I am kinda new to /liberty/ but this video explains it pretty well. It really comes down to a small group of people scamming the wider population by saying that government should step in to solve the issue they say exist and that they need more funding to continue studying it.

That being said, I do believe we should get off fossil fuels for ethical reasons relating to countries which exports it (Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other 'bastions of freedom'). The free market would have produced petrol synthesized from captured atmospheric CO2 powered by clean and efficient Thorium reactors decades ago if it wasn't for green shits. Also its the hard solution to 'man made global warming' but the only one which scientists would never propose because that would actually solve the issue they say exist.

>>16569

Fractional reserve banking is not a synonym for fiat money, friendo.

Fractional reserve banking is unsustainable because of how central banks progressively increase the money supply and reduce reserve requirements. It's a bad system, a deeply immoral system, but it's not the rapture it's set out to be. Statements like "in fractional reserve banking most people must be in debt or it can't function" are false. It's the sort of inaccuracy perpetuated on platforms like youtube by people who don't know what they're talking about.

>>16557

Economic profit is subjective because of foregone value. Accounting profit is a statistic.

>>16556

lol

it's not irrelevant, retard

>>16596

>It's not the rapture it's designed to be

That's highly contextual.

The way I see it, in this system, a worse economic climate guarantees a high short term spike and then a gradual but very deep long term drop.

You need to have someone make up that imaginary money they just cashed in, and then some. If that doesn't happen, then it's useless. Plus, in a good economy, this might generate a net profit but it'll be much lower than the profit obtained in a system based on non-imaginary money,

>>16593

> have a financial incentive to lie to you.

Like all those "scientists" and "sceptics" hired by certain industries to shill against global warming?

> The free market would have produced petrol synthesized from captured atmospheric CO2 powered by clean and efficient Thorium reactors decades ago if it wasn't for green shits.

lol you are deluded

>>16651

https://archive.is/wzjs1

Methanol produced from CO2

Vid related explains Thorium reactors in simple terms.

Liquid Flouride is already in abundance, it's how you bind Uranium into a semi-stable state for transportation.

What he's suggesting is completely possible, but green shits hate nuclear and refuse to let us have it.

>>16672

>https://archive.is/wzjs1

>Methanol produced from CO2

And once you have methanol you can easily make more complex chains which are more suitable for existing infrastructure.

>>16651

looking back at what I wrote, I think I misread the second quote.

>>16703

Yea I worded it a bit weird, but what I was trying to say was that as soon as it became cheaper to synthesize ethanol from atmospheric CO2 and water using nuclear power (Thorium is so cheap and energy dense that it probably still is even though oil is currently less than $40 per barrel) someone would have come along and set up a facility to do so.

Unfortunately though, environmentalists have cockblocked such technology through the strong arm of the state for decades while shilling for solar and other feelgood technologies (which are awful for the role they want, just look at Germany).

>>16715

Just doing some calculations

Cost of thorium per kg = $5291USD

Equivalent energy = 3,500,000kg of coal = ~1.05x10^14 J = ~105 TJ

Due to their high operating temperatures, Thorium reactors have a projected efficiencies up to 60%

This means about ~63TJ of energy is available for use in the synthesizing of fuel

Since I dont know the exact efficiency of the process in the arcticle in >>16672 I will take the Fischer–Tropsch process (which you use to convert CO and H2 into hydrocarbons) as my process efficiency, which is between 25% and 60%

Since the energy density of Ethanol is 20MJ per liter, this means that my 1kg of Thorium nets me between 788kL and 1.9ML of E100 fuel, which with the current price of gasoline in the US (~$2 per gallon) is between $417,600 and $1M before tax

$5291 into up to $1M, with that kind of profit your investment would be paid back in no time.