Chad Mitchell Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 As a long time Freedomain listener, I've struggled to understand what Trump's appeal is to the anarcho-capitalist position. While he does hold some views I find refreshing in politics, there is still some issues like 4th amendment and spying for instance where he falls short. As much time as Stefan has spent combatting the Trump haters, I would still like to see Stefan break down honestly both what he agrees and disagrees with Trump on.
dsayers Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 he falls short. I think you mean where his words fall short. So many people involved in the subject keep forgetting that his words are not binding an there are no consequences for not adhering to them. Also, what difference would it make how anybody agrees or disagrees with him on? The fact remains that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. The throne itself is invalid. It matters not who sits on it. This is all a HUGE distraction from the these facts. 1 1
DCLugi Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 I think you mean where his words fall short. So many people involved in the subject keep forgetting that his words are not binding an there are no consequences for not adhering to them. Also, what difference would it make how anybody agrees or disagrees with him on? The fact remains that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. The throne itself is invalid. It matters not who sits on it. This is all a HUGE distraction from the these facts. It would appear that humans can exist in opposing moral categories. Can I assume that you post on this board as opposed to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea because it is more likely that your points will be heard? Both boards are made up of users who are under invalid political rule. 2 2
dsayers Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 It would appear that humans can exist in opposing moral categories. Can I assume that you post on this board as opposed to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea because it is more likely that your points will be heard? Both boards are made up of users who are under invalid political rule. Pointing to a church isn't proving there's a deity. 1 1
edwardmorgante Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 The more important question is how does Trump compare to Hillary, not how Trumps views compare to yours or Stefans views. Trump is clearly better for America than Hillary so we have to live with his shortcomings. I would rather have Victor Orban (Hungary Pres) than Trump but he's not available. 2
DCLugi Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 Pointing to a church isn't proving there's a deity. By using this board you are voting against other boards. 1 1
Tyler H Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 The more important question is how does Trump compare to Hillary, not how Trumps views compare to yours or Stefans views. Trump is clearly better for America than Hillary so we have to live with his shortcomings. I would rather have Victor Orban (Hungary Pres) than Trump but he's not available. There are lots of arguments for this here. By using this board you are voting against other boards. I feel I need to point out that voting by way of free choice is different from voting in a coercive political system where the result is the initiation of force against innocents.
Wuzzums Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 There's a movement out there against the establishment, against social justice, against hypocrisy, against mainstream media, against feminism, and against cultural marxism. We rally behind Trump not because he's the spearhead of this movement but because he's conducive to its success. We do no care what Trump says, we do not care what lies Trump tells, we only care that electing him is in the establishment's worst interest. You can judge a man by the company he keeps however you can judge him just as accurately by the enemies he has. 2 1
DCLugi Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 There are lots of arguments for this here. I feel I need to point out that voting by way of free choice is different from voting in a coercive political system where the result is the initiation of force against innocents. Given the political system aren't both still under a coercive authority? If the government so desired it could shut down this site yet this is still a better choice than the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea where perhaps one could be arrested. I realize I may be stretching here and am trying to work it out myself.
Chad Mitchell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 The more important question is how does Trump compare to Hillary, not how Trumps views compare to yours or Stefans views. Trump is clearly better for America than Hillary so we have to live with his shortcomings. I would rather have Victor Orban (Hungary Pres) than Trump but he's not available. I don't remember Stefan spending this type of time on promoting Romney because he was better than Obama. I've listened to Stefan long enough to know that he views voting as pointless and the entire involuntary form of government as invalid. I'm curious about his honest opinion on issues that Trump's opinion is valid and ones in which his opinion is not . If only we had done any videos on Donald Trump discussing his positives and negatives... If you guys do have videos discussing this, I apologize that I missed them. There have been so many videos on Trump and many of them seemed to be aimed at only promoting him and taking on his critics. Obviously there are valid and invalid criticisms of Trump, and if Stefan does have a video on this, I would love to see it.
Tyler H Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Given the political system aren't both still under a coercive authority? If the government so desired it could shut down this site yet this is still a better choice than the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea where perhaps one could be arrested. I realize I may be stretching here and am trying to work it out myself. I'm having trouble following, let me know if you think I've completely misunderstood your point. People in the DPRK live under a despotic regime; their ability to choose anything freely is extremely limited. I don't even think many of them are allowed internet access at all. As far as we are concerned here, in the US or Canada, we have the ability to choose among many different options of which the results are not binding upon anyone else. If I choose to frequent FDR over another board I have not initiated force against anyone nor asked anyone else to on my behalf. The same is true if I choose to buy Nike over Reebok. However if I vote for someone to run the US government this choice does result in the initiation of force against others. In one case my choice does not lead to the initiation of force and in the other it does; this is the difference I mean to point out.
dayna j. Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 If you guys do have videos discussing this, I apologize that I missed them. There have been so many videos on Trump and many of them seemed to be aimed at only promoting him and taking on his critics. Obviously there are valid and invalid criticisms of Trump, and if Stefan does have a video on this, I would love to see it. There are 68 podcasts discussing Donald Trump. You're obviously not looking very hard.
Tyler H Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 There are 68 podcasts discussing Donald Trump. You're obviously not looking very hard. I didn't know there were that many, do you happen to know how many of those address a criticism of him or of the state? 2 5
jpahmad Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 I didn't know there were that many, do you happen to know how many of those address a criticism of him or of the state? Don't bother looking, Molyneux never criticizes the state. lol 1
dsayers Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 By using this board you are voting against other boards. I don't see how using one forum precludes me from using others. I also don't see how this proves that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. I'm not going to put more effort into your communication than you are. 1 1
perrytheplat Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 I didn't know there were that many, do you happen to know how many of those address a criticism of him or of the state? There are 68 podcasts discussing Donald Trump. You're obviously not looking very hard. I actually have had a very hard time finding podcasts/videos of him addressing valid criticisms. I've definitely heard podcasts of him addressing nonsense criticisms of him (racist ... etc). The only other one that I found was about Donald and tarrifs ... and the guest who he was speaking to devolved into bumbling goo. Are there any in particular that go over valid criticisms?
Tyler H Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 I didn't know there were that many, do you happen to know how many of those address a criticism of him or of the state?Interesting that I get a down vote for asking a question, I don't know how it was inferred as anything but a statement of my lack of knowledge and a curiosity of how many podcasts that discuss trump are critical of him or the state. I'm don't know why that deserves a push in the direction of censorship. Don't bother looking, Molyneux never criticizes the state. lolYour sarcastic response is a gross misrepresentation of my question. 2 1
DCLugi Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 I don't see how using one forum precludes me from using others. I also don't see how this proves that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. I'm not going to put more effort into your communication than you are. Ah, I misunderstood "Moral categories" for "Moral stances." Consider me corrected. Your are supporting this board over another by frequenting it and I assume it's because you value it more.
perrytheplat Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 What are the valid criticisms? The one I was specifically referring to was in regard to the double digit tariffs and trade barriers that Trump proposed. Economic protectionism. Here's a paper that discusses them: https://mises.org/library/protectionism-and-destruction-prosperity Fairness, Dumping, Infant Industries, Aging Industries, and Balance of Payments are all very common criticisms of free trade. Very bad examples of attempting to prove that competition harms the economy and the individual. Placing a 35% tariff on Ford and Carrier for manufacturing outside of the country would be popular examples Trump brought up himself. The other is the assumption that jobs belong to Americans or Japanese or whoever.
Tyler H Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 The one I was specifically referring to was in regard to the double digit tariffs and trade barriers that Trump proposed. Economic protectionism. Here's a paper that discusses them: https://mises.org/library/protectionism-and-destruction-prosperity Fairness, Dumping, Infant Industries, Aging Industries, and Balance of Payments are all very common criticisms of free trade. Very bad examples of attempting to prove that competition harms the economy and the individual. Placing a 35% tariff on Ford and Carrier for manufacturing outside of the country would be popular examples Trump brought up himself. The other is the assumption that jobs belong to Americans or Japanese or whoever. I think making the "military so big, powerful and strong that no will mess with us" is a political stance that deserves criticism from any libertarian as well. 1
perrytheplat Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 I think making the "military so big, powerful and strong that no will mess with us" is a political stance that deserves criticism from any libertarian as well. there are others as well sure ... i was kind of focusing on economics so I could hash that out clearly ... maybe somewhere in there is the situation with apple ... who the hell do they think they are? and their manufacturing outside of the country. the other one that comes to mind at the moment is executing snowden.
Tyler H Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Support for Israel... perpetuation of the war on drugs... 1
dsayers Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Ah, I misunderstood "Moral categories" for "Moral stances." Consider me corrected. Your are supporting this board over another by frequenting it and I assume it's because you value it more. This is moving the goalposts. Your initial claim was that they were mutually exclusive. It was intended to support a position you've now retracted. So I'm not sure what it is you're trying to communicate or why. Would you elaborate?
DCLugi Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 This is moving the goalposts. Your initial claim was that they were mutually exclusive. It was intended to support a position you've now retracted. So I'm not sure what it is you're trying to communicate or why. Would you elaborate? 2 separate items. Originally when you said humans can't exist in opposing moral categories I thought, but they're doing that now. That's why I corrected myself as I read it as moral stances. The second item is me still working out the difference between voting in a system of violence and choosing a place to post while under that same violence. I both admire and agree with your stance but there's something I can't shake about it. We are all under some degree of that violence and make choices to expedite the journey out of it. The self defense vote is still sticky for me.
dsayers Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 choosing a place to post while under that same violence. I both admire and agree with your stance but there's something I can't shake about it. We are all under some degree of that violence and make choices to expedite the journey out of it. The self defense vote is still sticky for me. Thank you for being forthcoming and thorough. I don't think it's relevant to point out that we post while under the threat of violence. It is true that if there was no government, of course I wouldn't be posting about misguidedly contributing government legitimacy. That said, nobody is pointing a gun at my head directing if and how I communicate on an international internet forum. So while there is an opportunity cost in not posting on other forums AT THE SAME TIME, this has no bearing on whether I'm being threatened in other ways. Would you agree? This is actually a good thing to flesh out when considering that you experience some trepidation in accepting what I see as the mythical idea of defensive voting. Six months ago, I hit rock bottom on a scale I could've never imagined. It has been a level of loneliness, starvation, and anguish I never thought possible. Or survivable for that matter :*( Yet survive I did. It was a contributing factor in an awakening I had already been experiencing with regards to how I hadn't been applying myself in life because I was in a defeatist mindset, as if it was "too late." 100% of my time now (and I am not exaggerating) is spent on either self-care, cultivating connections of quality people in my now increasingly robust support network, and helping others. This past week in particular has been amazing as I've seen the beauty in the ways people come together, build each other up, and those people now built up help to inspire and build up others. I cry just thinking about it because I realize that this is something some people take for granted and I'm only just now seeing because of the fact that I had been abused and isolated and allowed the Ripples of that damage to flow through me, keeping me that much more isolated for that much longer. The reason I'm sharing this potent-to-me anecdote is because for all intent's and purposes, the State doesn't exist in my life. Yes, every time I pay for something, the State is in there stealing some too. Yes, as I drive down the road, if I cross some arbitrary, imaginary lines, the State will aggress against me. We live under a State and just like breathing oxygen in different ways at different altitudes, it's something we have to adapt to for survival's sake. But whether Trump or Hillary is elected, my life will not change in any way. "I'm a giant, and I ain't gotta move till I'm provoked." -Dr. Dre, Say What You Say. Those MOSQUITOES are annoying, but have virtually no perceivable influence in my life. So I could spend my time listening to them, pretending like I can make a difference, modeling the acceptance of slavery in my life by getting involved in their sham of a ritual. Or I could instead use that time to build myself up, build others up, and save people from the very prisons ALL of their abusers, including these mosquitoes insist are there. 2
PedroRomero Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 This is something I'm also interested on. Yesterday I watched Trump's RNC nomination acceptance speech. It had many things which should be good for the Americans, but he also talked about Tariffs to prevent companies from outsourcing jobs abroad. Not being an expert, I'm under the impression that Tariffs, while they could help keep some jobs into the country, they could also make many other products more expensive as they need to be bought from abroad. So unless America is able to produce everything it needs via domestic industry, the consumer's income will not be too much better.
Wuzzums Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 This is something I'm also interested on. Yesterday I watched Trump's RNC nomination acceptance speech. It had many things which should be good for the Americans, but he also talked about Tariffs to prevent companies from outsourcing jobs abroad. Not being an expert, I'm under the impression that Tariffs, while they could help keep some jobs into the country, they could also make many other products more expensive as they need to be bought from abroad. So unless America is able to produce everything it needs via domestic industry, the consumer's income will not be too much better. So you think americans should buy child labor products even if it's against their wishes?
dsayers Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 So you think americans should buy child labor products even if it's against their wishes? Appeal to emotion. In some 3rd world countries, these child laborers work in sweat shops as opposed to prostitution. Should I use an appeal to emotion, non-argument to ask you if you're pro child prostitution? 1
Wuzzums Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 Appeal to emotion. Duh. The main reason child beggars exist is because people give them money out of pity. You stop giving them money and maybe people will stop kidnapping children and/or forcing them to work the streets? 1
powder Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 What are the valid criticisms? Tyler has pointed to a couple already in this thread.
perrytheplat Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 So you think americans should buy child labor products even if it's against their wishes? the slave labor or child labor thing is a common misconception. when trading labor for productivity both parties win ... one doesn't win and the other loses. basic econ. as consumers we participate in the market logically and economically ... not emotionally ... the whole buy american thing is not free trade nor is it sound economic policy. 1
dsayers Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 the slave labor or child labor thing is a common misconception. when trading labor for productivity both parties win ... one doesn't win and the other loses. basic econ. as consumers we participate in the market logically and economically ... not emotionally ... the whole buy american thing is not free trade nor is it sound economic policy. Upvote for overall value. I did want to challenge the claim that it is not emotional. It can be. Which is fine. If it's voluntary, the motivation isn't relevant. Not to mention emotions are one of our senses and not automatically a bad thing.
rosencrantz Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 as consumers we participate in the market logically and economically ... not emotionally ... the whole buy american thing is not free trade nor is it sound economic policy. Lets say free trade offers cheaper TVs, cars, and fridges. The prices go down because other countries can produce those products cheapers. That's all fine except for the people who used to make the products. A worker who used to make cars can now rejoice in lower prices for fridges and TVs but unfortunately he can't because he lost his job and can't afford those. The argument for free trade only works in conjunction with the law of supply and demand. The law of supply and demand is only valid when other factors ceteris paribus stay the same and only the price changes. Unfortunately, those other factors include income, expectations, and savings.
shirgall Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 Lets say free trade offers cheaper TVs, cars, and fridges. The prices go down because other countries can produce those products cheapers. That's all fine except for the people who used to make the products. A worker who used to make cars can now rejoice in lower prices for fridges and TVs but unfortunately he can't because he lost his job and can't afford those. The argument for free trade only works in conjunction with the law of supply and demand. The law of supply and demand is only valid when other factors ceteris paribus stay the same and only the price changes. Unfortunately, those other factors include income, expectations, and savings. In every transaction each participant comes away with something they wanted more than what they gave up. Those people making the products are getting a better deal than the alternatives they might be considering, including just walking away from the deal. This works locally. This works globally. The distortion is when arbitrary boundaries are created by tariffs and other taxes which skew this fundamental truth. When this happens it is possible for there to be winners and losers in a transaction, and it is governments that choose. An agreement about free trade should never be more than a paragraph. 1
perrytheplat Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 Upvote for overall value. I did want to challenge the claim that it is not emotional. It can be. Which is fine. If it's voluntary, the motivation isn't relevant. Not to mention emotions are one of our senses and not automatically a bad thing. I agree. The emotional component is not necessarily a bad thing ... maybe what I was trying to say was ... acting purely on emotion and not paying attention to the other components is absolutely a bad thing. Those individuals are free to make those bad decisions if they want to. I happen to disagree when they believe they should be able to make them for us ... in example governments dictating trade barriers ala Trump, Hillary, Bush, or anyone else. Lets say free trade offers cheaper TVs, cars, and fridges. The prices go down because other countries can produce those products cheapers. That's all fine except for the people who used to make the products. A worker who used to make cars can now rejoice in lower prices for fridges and TVs but unfortunately he can't because he lost his job and can't afford those. The argument for free trade only works in conjunction with the law of supply and demand. The law of supply and demand is only valid when other factors ceteris paribus stay the same and only the price changes. Unfortunately, those other factors include income, expectations, and savings. You have a decent point in here although I'm not sure you see the other side of it. Those economics laws are universal things. They exist like the law of gravity or mathematical laws. Where I think you are missing my point is that sure they are somewhat negative to the individuals who have skills and employment in inefficient industries. When a manufacturer of a product, for examples cars, is not able to do it competitively, creating an economics safe zone for them, to waste resources, and raise prices on a multitude of things makes us ALL worse off in the long run. It's an economic fallacy. Tariffs create deadweight loss of resources, higher prices, and even more economic instability after their companies become bankrupt. I'm open to further discussion. In every transaction each participant comes away with something they wanted more than what they gave up. Those people making the products are getting a better deal than the alternatives they might be considering, including just walking away from the deal. This works locally. This works globally. The distortion is when arbitrary boundaries are created by tariffs and other taxes which skew this fundamental truth. When this happens it is possible for there to be winners and losers in a transaction, and it is governments that choose. An agreement about free trade should never be more than a paragraph. I believe this gentleman expressed it very clearly. Government creating losers in situations that are expressly always win win for both parties. It's a net negative.
Recommended Posts