Max Keiser - "Libertarians are Intellectually Lazy & Idiots"

[myrkul]

Libertarianism is not based on science. I have no reference for defending it. You have not posited a clear specific argument where AnCap is sustainable. The Wikipedia article mentions historical roots to related philosophies, but that's like saying we have a mission to Alpha Centauri planned because we went to the moon. I think your philosophy has a lot of development to do and probably requires a technological breakthrough of some sort before it should be attempted.

And still, you avoid stating how libertarianism fails to meet Maslow's needs. C'mon, chief. Out with it.

Here, I'll start you off. The only need which government has any role in providing is safety. AnCap provides that with protection agencies and arbitration/restitution, and a libertarian state provides that by it being the one service that it provides.

[1714146360]

1714146360

[1714146360]

1714146360

[cbeast]

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise.

"Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth.

OK then real life examples. Most great inventors, artists, authors, etc. in history lived on a pension of some sort. They were supported by family wealth or at the amusement of an aristocrat. People struggling to survive don't think grand thoughts. Speaking of which, I must now bow to my master for a few hours.

[bb113]

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise.

"Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth.

OK then real life examples. Most great inventors, artists, authors, etc. in history lived on a pension of some sort. They were supported by family wealth or at the amusement of an aristocrat. People struggling to survive don't think grand thoughts. Speaking of which, I must now bow to my master for a few hours.

I would agree. I would just change the original wording from "[if needs are met] people will thrive" to "the ability of people to thrive is facilitated by having their basic needs met". In other words, having basic needs met is necessary but not sufficient for thriving.

[420]

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise.

"Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth.

OK then real life examples. Most great inventors, artists, authors, etc. in history lived on a pension of some sort. They were supported by family wealth or at the amusement of an aristocrat. People struggling to survive don't think grand thoughts. Speaking of which, I must now bow to my master for a few hours.

I would agree. I would just change the original wording from "[if needs are met] people will thrive" to "the ability of people to thrive is facilitated by having their basic needs met". In other words, having basic needs met is necessary but not sufficient for thriving.

[dree12]

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise.

"Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth.

OK then real life examples. Most great inventors, artists, authors, etc. in history lived on a pension of some sort. They were supported by family wealth or at the amusement of an aristocrat. People struggling to survive don't think grand thoughts. Speaking of which, I must now bow to my master for a few hours.

I would agree. I would just change the original wording from "[if needs are met] people will thrive" to "the ability of people to thrive is facilitated by having their basic needs met". In other words, having basic needs met is necessary but not sufficient for thriving.

The entire right column of that is not "needs". Those are Internet resources that do nothing more than waste time that could go to proper socialization.

[myrkul]

The entire right column of that is not "needs". Those are Internet resources that do nothing more than waste time that could go to proper socialization.

The entire right column of that is internet resources which meet those needs in the tier they are featured. LinkedIn, for instance, meets the need for employment, or at least, helps meet that need. I do agree they're a waste of space in this graphic, though. Not needed for the discussion.

[420]

The entire right column of that is not "needs". Those are Internet resources that do nothing more than waste time that could go to proper socialization.

The entire right column of that is internet resources which meet those needs in the tier they are featured. LinkedIn, for instance, meets the need for employment, or at least, helps meet that need. I do agree they're a waste of space in this graphic, though. Not needed for the discussion.

thanks for jumping in i was about to explain that

[niemivh]

A bigger problem is not laziness but that there are only 24 hours in a day and a declining standard of living.

A correlation between the two perhaps?  If so (which is obviously the case) then when are y'all going to learn your way out of these problems?  After you're homeless and starving...?  Or after you beat Skyrim and/or D3 with your Barbarian?

It's time to wake up and smell the social degeneracy.  The rot and filth and decay of the minds, body's and spirits of the population and the body politic.  And Internet Libtards are about the approximation of this societies anus, pursuant to that analogy.

Is anyone willing to read some things outside their confront zone?



 

[niemivh]

I would like to see a real Libertarian plan for a civilization that would actually work. If there is one, why haven't they created it yet?

You are taking part in it. The plan is to just replace governments and their creations piece by piece with superior decentralized alternatives. If these alternatives don't get created or adopted, perhaps there is still a need for government intervention in that realm. The idea that everything should be planned out beforehand is for other people to do.

Sounds like secessionism to me.

[niemivh]

I would like to see a real Libertarian plan for a civilization that would actually work. If there is one, why haven't they created it yet?

You are taking part in it. The plan is to just replace governments and their creations piece by piece with superior decentralized alternatives. If these alternatives don't get created or adopted, perhaps there is still a need for government intervention in that realm. The idea that everything should be planned out beforehand is for other people to do.

I see the decentralization movement not replacing government, just decentralizing it. Libertarians believe in no government and survival of the strongest. Historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History Other than Vikings living through raiding unsuspecting villages, I don't see a culture of selfishness actually working. Eventually collectivism of some sort will overpower warlords.

I can see Bitcoin promoting privacy where government does not interfere with the individual without cause, such as taxation without representation. In fact, Bitcoin will probably eliminate the need for national borders and limit the ability of large-scale warfare because money is globally interdependent.

Funny how all this 'decentralization' actually does the work of the 'dividing' prior to the 'conquering' that will soon follow.  You regionalist fools are walking headlong into a trap in many regards to these proposed 'solutions'.  Mark my words, before this decade is through we're going to see a serious resurgence of secessionism.

[niemivh]

Libertarians believe in no government and survival of the strongest. Historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History Other than Vikings living through raiding unsuspecting villages, I don't see a culture of selfishness actually working. Eventually collectivism of some sort will overpower warlords.

WTF have you been smoking?

You take one example, of Medieval Iceland, twist it all up wrong, and say "historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare"? Come on, man. Nobody can be that stupid. You have to be trolling. The Vikings were from Norway. 

Tell me how a society based on this practices continuous warfare.

Wherever one finds Utopian thinking one finds ignorance and foolishness in abundance.

[420]

I would like to see a real Libertarian plan for a civilization that would actually work. If there is one, why haven't they created it yet?

You are taking part in it. The plan is to just replace governments and their creations piece by piece with superior decentralized alternatives. If these alternatives don't get created or adopted, perhaps there is still a need for government intervention in that realm. The idea that everything should be planned out beforehand is for other people to do.

I see the decentralization movement not replacing government, just decentralizing it. Libertarians believe in no government and survival of the strongest. Historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History Other than Vikings living through raiding unsuspecting villages, I don't see a culture of selfishness actually working. Eventually collectivism of some sort will overpower warlords.

I can see Bitcoin promoting privacy where government does not interfere with the individual without cause, such as taxation without representation. In fact, Bitcoin will probably eliminate the need for national borders and limit the ability of large-scale warfare because money is globally interdependent.

Funny how all this 'decentralization' actually does the work of the 'dividing' prior to the 'conquering' that will soon follow.  You regionalist fools are walking headlong into a trap in many regards to these proposed 'solutions'.  Mark my words, before this decade is through we're going to see a serious resurgence of secessionism.

I am not one of the Libertarians to partake in the jumping off the deep end into the waters of "all decentralization is good and having no central authority does not hinder our defense strategically"

thanks very much

[myrkul]

Wherever one finds Utopian thinking one finds ignorance and foolishness in abundance.

A truer statement you have never uttered about yourself.

[niemivh]

I'm afraid you're wrong about wanting "nothing to replace it"

And Ron Paul isn't my Poster boy. I'm not a political Libertarian, I'm an agorist. That means I want to build the replacement system right now, within the shell of the old failing one, so that when it crumbles (oh, and it will, on that, I think we can agree), the new way is there to take up the slack.

A few links that may help you understand my position:
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epub
http://agorism.info/

But before you read those, I want to ask you, What is it about human nature that you believe libertarianism would need to change?

Don't worry about proposing solutions after the system collapses.  Whatever Utopian systems you promote better begin with a large doses of Warlord repellent to deal with the pragmatic actualities of that future existence.  Perhaps you should hang your cherished, quaint, and naive tenants of your ideology on a sign outside your encampment.  So when the roaming band of starving, desperate people see it they can reflect on the finer points of cosmopoltian, bourgeoisie theoreticians of the 20th century; that is, right before they roll into your camp and plunder it for their own survival.  Perhaps, if they are feeling generous - a faded memory of a lost time - they'll leave you with your eyes to cry with.

People frozen in your 13 year old emotional state should simply pay these issues no mind.  Leave it to actual adults with grown-up ideas, who read grown-up books and have grown-up conversations and quit being a radical advocate for your own personal and nation's destruction.

I'd appreciate it, thanks.

[niemivh]

Switzerland was in no position to take sides even if they wanted to. Bad example. What if England chose to remain neutral in WWII?

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

Switzerland's a perfect example of exactly how a libertarian nation or AnCap region would handle being surrounded by warring nations. "Well, I suppose my people would have to shoot twice."

OK, now, how does libertarianism fail to meet those needs?

Lol.  You're cute.  One of my friends is from there and goes back every year; and it is what you'd consider a hellscape of collectivism. Is it just the foreign policy you're giving kudos to or the whole country?  Funny then how the opposite internal policies that you prefer actually lead to the desirable outcomes with regards to your foreign policy.  Your provincialism is showing again.

[niemivh]

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise.

"Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth.

OK then real life examples. Most great inventors, artists, authors, etc. in history lived on a pension of some sort. They were supported by family wealth or at the amusement of an aristocrat. People struggling to survive don't think grand thoughts. Speaking of which, I must now bow to my master for a few hours.

I would agree. I would just change the original wording from "[if needs are met] people will thrive" to "the ability of people to thrive is facilitated by having their basic needs met". In other words, having basic needs met is necessary but not sufficient for thriving.

For as bad as Maslow is, he's better than Bentham.

[benjamindees]

niemivh, I'm not sure which "nation" you're talking about.  But, if it's the United States, you should probably take a step back and realize that our "central" government has not served to aid in our "defense" in the least.  On the contrary, it has only served to provide a convenient storefront for foreigners wishing to purchase our country wholesale.  Centralization is a complete failure.  Secessionism worked swimmingly the last time we had it.  Your peddling the same old tired, collectivist ideologies that brought us to this point will not help in getting us through what is to come.

[myrkul]

Don't worry about proposing solutions after the system collapses.  Whatever Utopian systems you promote better begin with a large doses of Warlord repellent to deal with the pragmatic actualities of that future existence.  

Got yer Warlord repellant right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency

[niemivh]

I would like to see a real Libertarian plan for a civilization that would actually work. If there is one, why haven't they created it yet?

You are taking part in it. The plan is to just replace governments and their creations piece by piece with superior decentralized alternatives. If these alternatives don't get created or adopted, perhaps there is still a need for government intervention in that realm. The idea that everything should be planned out beforehand is for other people to do.

I see the decentralization movement not replacing government, just decentralizing it. Libertarians believe in no government and survival of the strongest. Historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History Other than Vikings living through raiding unsuspecting villages, I don't see a culture of selfishness actually working. Eventually collectivism of some sort will overpower warlords.

I can see Bitcoin promoting privacy where government does not interfere with the individual without cause, such as taxation without representation. In fact, Bitcoin will probably eliminate the need for national borders and limit the ability of large-scale warfare because money is globally interdependent.

Funny how all this 'decentralization' actually does the work of the 'dividing' prior to the 'conquering' that will soon follow.  You regionalist fools are walking headlong into a trap in many regards to these proposed 'solutions'.  Mark my words, before this decade is through we're going to see a serious resurgence of secessionism.

I am not one of the Libertarians to partake in the jumping off the deep end into the waters of "all decentralization is good and having no central authority does not hinder our defense strategically"

thanks very much

Sorry, that wasn't meant to foist upon you something that you do not hold, it just reminded me of how much in the realm of supposed 'solutions' I'm seeing in this specific direction.

My apologies.

[niemivh]

niemivh, I'm not sure which "nation" you're talking about.  But, if it's the United States, you should probably take a step back and realize that our "central" government has not served to aid in our "defense" in the least.  On the contrary, it has only served to provide a convenient storefront for foreigners wishing to purchase our country wholesale.  Centralization is a complete failure.  Secessionism worked swimmingly the last time we had it.  Your peddling the same old tired, collectivist ideologies that brought us to this point will not help in getting us through what is to come.

Are you referring to the Civil War?  And are you admitting to treason?