3 ms·

In the section I quoted: >>Libertarians would have us believe that unregulated, free-market capitalism is somehow diametrically opposed to state capitalism. On

In the section I quoted: >>Libertarians would have us believe that unregulated, free-market capitalism is somehow diametrically opposed to state capitalism. One encourages innovation; the other stifles it. What Thiel demonstrates is that unregulated, free-market capitalism is in fact closely aligned to state capitalism. Deregulation means that nothing constrains the monopoly power of the security state and nothing gets in the way of people selling it their bogus and corrupting wares There is absolutely nothing in the principle that we should not have prohibitons on mutually voluntary interactions, or expropriations of private property from peaceful individuals, that would elicit resistance to the state having rules governing appropriations to ensure tax dollars aren't being wasted. This is such a ridiculous and shameless formulation by the author that it discredits everything else they wrote, and exposes them as an ideologue who puts advancement of their ideological agenda above truth.

dundarious 5y ago
I’m aware of the basics of this school of thought, so I think the fact that I can still genuinely find no trace of “violent expropriations of private property by the state” in that quotation shows who the ideologue is.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  A person with the level of general knowledge that the author exhibits is obviously going to be well aware of libertarianism's stance on taxation. Most forms of taxation constitute "expropriation of private property by the state", which libertarianism strongly opposes. And in that passage I quoted from his article, it is funds derived from taxation - since that is the source of all government funding - that the author is alleging libertarianism/free-market-capitalism not only accepts the wasting of, as long as the waste is under the umberage of the government provisioning security services, but also, in its governance philosophy, expressly forbids having any rules to reign in the wasting of. Even spelling out his logic leaves me dumbfounded by its shameless dishonesty and absurdity. I can't believe I even have to explain this: his claim is completely baseless, with nothing in any mainstream definition of libertarianism to justify it, and moreover, it contradicts one of the core concerns of libertarians/libertarianism, which is the avoidance of inefficiency and waste when expending tax dollars. The article is an ideological hit piece, and it's crafted in utterly bad faith. But hey, as long as it's supporting the right political tribe, that's evidently okay for some people. The ends justify the means, i.e. bad faith sophistry is justified by the righteousness of the larger cause.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    OK so it is taxes, the thing I said would be funny, and it is.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      How glib. This is not just disrespectful to me. It's disrespectful to the process of civil discourse.
      - dundarious 5y ago
        Not sorry, your histrionics are rooted in that logical leap, so the situation is funny to me.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        Can you elaborate, by reiterating my argument back to me, and pointing out to me where I did what you allege, instead of evading with these vague, glib one-liners? No of course not. You'll continue hiding behind these bad-faith quips.
        dundarious 5y ago
        Same as it was in my original comment, the author is not describing abstract ideology, except as minor background -- he's describing real people doing real things in real situations. He's speaking of lowercase-ell libertarians in the political sphere, and what ideological adaptations they've made for personal gain. Hacking away at the state's budget, but with an extreme focus on the welfare and regulatory side, all while seeking contracts from the military industrial complex for tasks that have nothing to do with capital-ell Libertarian tasks like enforcing the NAP.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>he's describing real people doing real things in real situations He is describing what he claims "unregulated free market capitalism" produces: >>What Thiel demonstrates is that unregulated, free-market capitalism is in fact closely aligned to state capitalism. Deregulation means that nothing constrains the monopoly power of the security state and nothing gets in the way of people selling it their bogus and corrupting wares I've described in detail why this claim is absurd. Just to touch back on those for a moment: the "deregulation" has nothing to do with the security state. It doesn't mean a lack of laws constraining what the state can do. The term refers exclusively to an absence of regulatory restrictions on voluntary economic interactions between consenting private actors. Not lack of restrictions on the state and its procurement processes. You're welcome to contend with my arguments, which I've elaborated on in detail, when you decide you want to have a meaningful exchange of arguments.

dundarious 5y ago

I’m aware of the basics of this school of thought, so I think the fact that I can still genuinely find no trace of “violent expropriations of private property by the state” in that quotation shows who the ideologue is.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
A person with the level of general knowledge that the author exhibits is obviously going to be well aware of libertarianism's stance on taxation. Most forms of taxation constitute "expropriation of private property by the state", which libertarianism strongly opposes. And in that passage I quoted from his article, it is funds derived from taxation - since that is the source of all government funding - that the author is alleging libertarianism/free-market-capitalism not only accepts the wasting of, as long as the waste is under the umberage of the government provisioning security services, but also, in its governance philosophy, expressly forbids having any rules to reign in the wasting of. Even spelling out his logic leaves me dumbfounded by its shameless dishonesty and absurdity. I can't believe I even have to explain this: his claim is completely baseless, with nothing in any mainstream definition of libertarianism to justify it, and moreover, it contradicts one of the core concerns of libertarians/libertarianism, which is the avoidance of inefficiency and waste when expending tax dollars. The article is an ideological hit piece, and it's crafted in utterly bad faith. But hey, as long as it's supporting the right political tribe, that's evidently okay for some people. The ends justify the means, i.e. bad faith sophistry is justified by the righteousness of the larger cause.
- dundarious 5y ago
  OK so it is taxes, the thing I said would be funny, and it is.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    How glib. This is not just disrespectful to me. It's disrespectful to the process of civil discourse.
    - dundarious 5y ago
      Not sorry, your histrionics are rooted in that logical leap, so the situation is funny to me.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        Can you elaborate, by reiterating my argument back to me, and pointing out to me where I did what you allege, instead of evading with these vague, glib one-liners? No of course not. You'll continue hiding behind these bad-faith quips.
        dundarious 5y ago
        Same as it was in my original comment, the author is not describing abstract ideology, except as minor background -- he's describing real people doing real things in real situations. He's speaking of lowercase-ell libertarians in the political sphere, and what ideological adaptations they've made for personal gain. Hacking away at the state's budget, but with an extreme focus on the welfare and regulatory side, all while seeking contracts from the military industrial complex for tasks that have nothing to do with capital-ell Libertarian tasks like enforcing the NAP.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>he's describing real people doing real things in real situations He is describing what he claims "unregulated free market capitalism" produces: >>What Thiel demonstrates is that unregulated, free-market capitalism is in fact closely aligned to state capitalism. Deregulation means that nothing constrains the monopoly power of the security state and nothing gets in the way of people selling it their bogus and corrupting wares I've described in detail why this claim is absurd. Just to touch back on those for a moment: the "deregulation" has nothing to do with the security state. It doesn't mean a lack of laws constraining what the state can do. The term refers exclusively to an absence of regulatory restrictions on voluntary economic interactions between consenting private actors. Not lack of restrictions on the state and its procurement processes. You're welcome to contend with my arguments, which I've elaborated on in detail, when you decide you want to have a meaningful exchange of arguments.