ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Occam's Razor suggests otherwise

Bryan Caplan asks and answers a question:
I'm a fallible human being, so when people say, "Bryan, what you fail to realize is..." I listen closely.  Precisely what do I fail to realize?  I'd really like to know.

Most of the time, though, I'm sadly disappointed.  The things I allegedly "fail to realize" tend to be smack dab in the middle of my class notes and publications.  Latest example: Many critics of my cosmopolitan and open borders stance have faulted me for "failing to realize" that normal human beings value their group identities.

The reality is that I've been vocally affirming the political importance of group identity for over a decade.  Check out my undergraduate and graduate course notes on voter motivation, this article, my posts on the Respect Motive, or my effusive praise for the expressive voting model.  My punchline of American partisanship, for example, is that the data shows:

1. Strong evidence for group-interested voting, with race being the main group of interest.
2. Self-interest plays a marginal role at most.

I even give my graduate Public Choice students this essay assignment:

Consider another country and/or historical era with which you are familiar. Write a case study of its politics that weighs the explanatory power of the SIVH [Self-Interested Voter Hypothesis], group-interest, and ideology.

How can I grasp the massive political effects of group identity, but remain a cosmopolitan and open borders advocate?  Simple.
I don't buy his answer. I have a much more logical one. Bryan Caplan grasps the massive political effects of group identity, but remains a cosmopolitan and open borders advocate because he sees it as being in the interest of the group with which he identifies.

Labels: ,

120 Comments:

Blogger James D. Miller August 10, 2016 7:59 PM  

Many free market economists believe that the world would be a much richer place with open borders. Caplan probably identifies more as "human" or "economist" than any ethnic or religious identity.

Blogger JCclimber August 10, 2016 7:59 PM  

I read his little diatribe. It is becoming easier to spot the holes in arguments of these globalists. I give credit to the things I've learned here, at CH, and at Zerohedge.

Here is the money quote, in my opinion:
"Do you want to deprive millions of foreigners of the basic human rights to sell their labor to willing buyers, rent apartments from willing landlords, and buy groceries from willing merchants? Just say, "It's necessary to protect American jobs" in a self-righteous tone, then bask in the admiration of your fellow citizens."

Number one, projection of the self-righteous tone. I'm easily able to imagine Caplan of using that tone himself.

Number two: Declaring that we are depriving any foreigner of any human right by not allowing them to sell their crap in our country. It's not a human right, and it certainly isn't a basic human right.

Number three: We aren't stopping those foreigners from selling their labor to other nations

Number four: We certainly aren't stopping those foreigners from selling to their own people in their own nation.

I don't get the parts about renting to willing landlords and the groceries bit. Unless this person, this scum bucket, is trying to make an argument against laws preventing these activities to people who are breaking the law by being within our borders.

Anonymous JAG August 10, 2016 7:59 PM  

I don't buy his answer. I have a much more logical one. Bryan Caplan grasps the massive political effects of group identity, but remains a cosmopolitan and open borders advocate because he sees it as being in the interest of the group with which he identifies.

Exactamundo.

Anonymous JAG August 10, 2016 8:02 PM  

Number two: Declaring that we are depriving any foreigner of any human right by not allowing them to sell their crap in our country. It's not a human right, and it certainly isn't a basic human right.

It's such bullshit anyway. The majority of foreigners in the US are here to suck the tit of the welfare leviathan.

Blogger JCclimber August 10, 2016 8:02 PM  

Another blanket statement which is a blatant lie:
"Love of family has the same risk, but since the evils of nepotism are widely acknowledged, the downside is minor."

This cuck has obviously never studied the almost exclusively familial way of governing practiced by the majority of this world's population.

He must live in a gated community and limit his reading to a special brand of liberal utopia.

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata August 10, 2016 8:02 PM  

(((Caplan)))?

Blogger Jim August 10, 2016 8:03 PM  

Bryan Caplan grasps the massive political effects of group identity, but remains a cosmopolitan and open borders advocate because he sees it as being in the interest of the group with which he identifies.

Says the former Rothbardian that apparently can no longer see through his older eyes?

Blogger JCclimber August 10, 2016 8:05 PM  

Oh, and if he is a (((tribe))) member, this quote is even more hypocritical. "Love of family has the same risk, but since the evils of nepotism are widely acknowledged, the downside is minor."

Considering that only the moslems, possibly, could surpass the amount of nepotism that the (((tribe))) engages in.

Blogger tz August 10, 2016 8:06 PM  

An immigrant will use Occams razor to slit your throat - if he can't find anything else.

Blogger tz August 10, 2016 8:08 PM  

The capitalist will sell you the Occam's brand razor they will use to slit your throat.

Blogger njtech August 10, 2016 8:09 PM  

James D. Miller wrote:Many free market economists believe that the world would be a much richer place with open borders. Caplan probably identifies more as "human" or "economist" than any ethnic or religious identity.

So then why do so many sharing his ethnic credentials, but not his professional ones, share the exact same viewpoint on the matter?

It would strongly suggest it's an opinion transcending economics.

Blogger VD August 10, 2016 8:09 PM  

Says the former Rothbardian that apparently can no longer see through his older eyes?

I've never been a Rothbardian. I do admire him for his wonderful economic history. But I even criticized his core mechanism for the Austrian Business Cycle and suggested a replacement.

Blogger Rick August 10, 2016 8:12 PM  

Open borders is the greatest thing since sliced bread every day of the year except one:
Columbus Day

Blogger Jim August 10, 2016 8:18 PM  

@12 VD, I should have just said "libertarian" ... my point would have been the same. Caplan's politics(which is pretty close to mine), to me obviously, is the explanation for his positions. Not his heritage. A view (I thought) you were once close to. So I would have thought that at least at that time, would have held similar positions and would see why he has his.

Anonymous andon August 10, 2016 8:23 PM  

so Gabe was a (((Kaplan))) too?

Blogger Jim August 10, 2016 8:23 PM  

Sorry for the grammatical disaster @14

Blogger Jon M August 10, 2016 8:35 PM  

"Open borders is the greatest thing since sliced bread every day of the year except one:
Columbus Day"

Genius! I'm going to have some fun with that this October.

Anonymous Longtime Lurker August 10, 2016 8:36 PM  

Cosmopolitan types, aka "citizens of the world," are just as tribal as the "tribal types" they disdain. Perhaps Canada will take them in after push comes to shove.

Blogger Dire Badger August 10, 2016 8:41 PM  

You know, when right wing people say "You fail to realize", what they are really doing is putting a polite face on the fact that they consider a leftist a fucking shortsighted moron. By saying "You fail to realize' they are giving you the 'out' of ignorance, rather than admitting that the person in question has all the facts staring them in the face and is simply too stupid to put two and two together, or too childish to notice that the unicorns are just painted on.

Blogger VD August 10, 2016 8:41 PM  

So I would have thought that at least at that time, would have held similar positions and would see why he has his.

I've always been aware of the intrinsic contradiction between libertarian ideals and open borders. That was one of the reasons I never became a capital-L Libertarian Party member.

I was fine with the drugs, but not the open borders.

Blogger Bill August 10, 2016 8:55 PM  

American Soccer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRt4_lsTUJw

Blogger Robert Divinity August 10, 2016 9:08 PM  

the group with which he identifies

Yes, virtuous cosmopolitans who are perfectly willing to sacrifice everyone else's well-being to feel smug. I really despise these selfish motherfuckers who are too caught up in their superciliousness to give a damn about their neighbors. It will be a better world when they are too marginalized to exist in our society.

Anonymous Jason August 10, 2016 9:16 PM  

But humans' love of our own group is a fundamental cause of unjust treatment of outgroups.
This sentence really bothers me, but I'm not smart enough to explain why. Is he implying there is a universal definition of unjust that all groups would agree to? If he is implying that, I think it's really whatever definition of unjust he chooses to use.

Blogger Jim August 10, 2016 9:20 PM  

@20 VD: So, maybe he's an open borders cosmopolitan because of his libertarianism; "open borders" being a somewhat-reliably predictable (though not certain) position for anyone you can also predicate libertarianism of - irrespective of participation in various smoke filled room cabalistic planing sessions.

Anonymous Eric the Red August 10, 2016 9:38 PM  

What's truly tiresome is anybody who still thinks that "dialogue" is possible with slime like Caplan. Only one response is necessary in war: identify the enemy, and destroy by whatever means necessary the ability for him to achieve his aims.

Blogger Gaiseric August 10, 2016 9:45 PM  

Caplan is Jewish, yes, but he's also high church athiest.

Of course for American Jews, the core of their identity doesn't have anything to do with the Jewish religion other than its rejection of Christ and Christianity.

Blogger James Dixon August 10, 2016 9:49 PM  

> (((Caplan)))?

From http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/06/what_life_exper.html

"Because my father is Jewish." and "I haven't changed my mind about the folly of religion."

So ethnically yes, religiously no.

Blogger ace August 10, 2016 10:01 PM  

Human rights was a nice concept when it was mostly for whites to understood it. Now that it's for everyone, everywhere, it feels suspiciously like serfdom and conquest. Various people have extensive rights to my labor, making me de facto a serf. They have rights to invade my land and rights to free trade, making them de facto conquerors.

And all of this happened without even the catharsis of a foreign army rolling over me and dictating these terms.

Blogger Jim August 10, 2016 10:09 PM  

@27 ace, "Human rights" (or, "natural rights") are those that prevent serfdom. No one has a natural right to your labor. If you're entering serfdom against your will it's because of a "natural rights" violation, not because others have some right to your person, or property.

Of course, that goes both ways.

Anonymous Godfrey August 10, 2016 10:12 PM  

Israel has a wall Bryan.

Israel hasn't welcomed any refugees Bryan.

Israel has a strict immigration policy Bryan.

I'll accept "open borders" once Israel does Bryan.

Anonymous Eric the Red August 10, 2016 10:18 PM  

@28 Jim..

Like all leftists, you preach a theoretical moderation, but the inevitable result of your philosophy is real-world extremism.

And like all leftists, your inevitable response to my accusation will be to pretend that the chaos and destruction of your policies is nowhere in evidence.

Blogger Jim August 10, 2016 10:19 PM  

@30 Eric, Funny. I'm pretty much an extremist to start with. But no one that knows me EVER called me a leftist.

Blogger G-S. August 10, 2016 10:39 PM  

Occams Razor: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Open borders and in-group identity explained: some people care about race, and some don't.

Anonymous VFM #6306 August 10, 2016 10:40 PM  

A very cutting insight to finish the post.

Groupthink for thee, but not for me, sez he.

Blogger ace August 10, 2016 10:41 PM  

@28

My point is not to argue about the original purpose of human rights or the philosophy behind them. I was simply pointing out the degradation of this concept had progressed to the point that, if you ever hear anyone speaking about in public, you can be sure they are talking about exactly the opposite.

The only people who understand human rights are white men. To everyone else they are 'human rights' in quotes, which do not exist except to boost transfers of status and money to themselves.

Anonymous VFM #6306 August 10, 2016 10:42 PM  

I hope you aren't old enough to shave, G-S. If so, consider starting with Occam's Safety Razor till you get the hang of it.

Blogger James Dixon August 10, 2016 10:48 PM  

> Open borders and in-group identity explained: some people care about race, and some don't.

Whether you care about race or not, race certainly cares about you.

Blogger Stilicho August 10, 2016 10:53 PM  

As to the motivation of Caplan's group, we'll if you flood a country with the flotsam and jetsam of third world socialist shitholes, the native born are less likely to notice the alien nature of Caplan's group. Problem is, the native born are starting to notice which group is always involved with the third world invasion and associating Caplan's group with the third world invaders rather than with the native born amongst whom the Caplans wanted to hide.

Anonymous TCC August 10, 2016 10:54 PM  

It's cool how, on the one hand, he declares identities "shallow" and, on the other, calls them a "mighty political force".

In his cosmopolitan world, which of those is gonna be true one wonder? Interested parties use identities to their own advantages, he says? Does he mean that in the cosmopolitan universe, that's just not going to happen?

Who the fuck makes up his policies on the basis of this kind of ideological homeostasis? Of course some activists / politicians / media organizations are gonna whip up tensions between various identities for their own purposes. His cosmopolitanism isn't going to change that, it's gonna guarantee that it happens. (It's already happening.)

Anonymous Discard August 10, 2016 11:12 PM  

32. G-S: Everybody cares about race. Some people just lie about it.

Blogger Fifty Seven August 10, 2016 11:13 PM  

Send him a Ouija board and ask him to interview some Tasmanian aborigines for their views on open borders.

Blogger The Gray Man August 10, 2016 11:15 PM  

Vox,

Do you address the criticism of Rothbard's business cycle theory in your Great Depression book

Blogger Lazarus August 10, 2016 11:20 PM  

Comes the revolution, how does a nationalist state handle their "world class" cities? That is where the globalist 5th column hangs out.

For instance, Russia has not managed to nationalize its Central Bank, which is still owned by the "City of London".

North Korea has an independent Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, whic is a positive, but the Regime has been known to run over Christians heads with steam rollers.

Where will the middle ground be??

Blogger Nemontel August 10, 2016 11:21 PM  

Yes (((Caplan))), spews irrational and obfuscating bullshit on immigration for years now already. I remember having read some of his comments on the topic two years ago when he was saying that he feels more comfortable in a multiracial country like the US than in a country demographically resembling the whiter, more Mormon parts of Utah. The man simply cannot speak the truth for once in his life. He is a wonderful example of the majority of his ethnic group and why i am forced to use the (((paranthesis))), something which i deeply do not want to do to be honest. But he and his ilk simply force me to do it! GOD DAMMIT! I so very much would like to see peace and serenity between his kind and us but how am i to adapt to this kind of behaviour in a different way? Is there even any other way than to counterattack?!

Blogger Nick S August 10, 2016 11:27 PM  

"...because he sees it as being in the interest of the group with which he identifies."

I would narrow it even further. He sees it as a lever to enhance his status within the group with which he identifies.

Blogger newanubis August 10, 2016 11:29 PM  

Damn have you got his number. Hope you don't expect to repost on a domain under his control!

Anonymous DT August 10, 2016 11:38 PM  

"Do you want to deprive millions of foreigners of the basic human rights to sell their labor to willing buyers, rent apartments from willing landlords, and buy groceries from willing merchants? Just say, "It's necessary to protect American jobs" in a self-righteous tone, then bask in the admiration of your fellow citizens."

Of course not Caplan.

I just want to deprive you of 90% of all your savings and investments in a one time asset forfeiture to the government. Followed by 90% of all future income with a refined income tax. Oh, and any property you own besides one home for you to you live in.

Mo' money for dem' programs. After all, you wouldn't want to deprive millions of foreigners, or their fellow citizens with displaced careers, of the basic human rights to food, housing, healthcare, and education...would you?

Blogger Jim August 10, 2016 11:41 PM  

@43 I so very much would like to see peace and serenity between his kind and us

You mean between Alt-R and libertarians? That's easy!

First, you can stop blaming in-group preferences for things explained by worldview/politics (like supporting open-borders) by using a simple application of Occam's Razor (oh William, could you have imagined?)

Or we can come up with different in-group preference rationales for why: white libertarians support it, black libertarians support it, female libertarians support it, Jewish libertarians support it (<- Bryan is one of these), Catholic libertarians support it, Baptist libertarians support it, right wing libertarians support it (Tom Woods/Bob Murphy), left-libertarians (*cough*) (CATO/Reason) support it ...

Let's see. Can we apply Occam's Razor here? Oh William of Occam, can you help us out from beyond the grave? What would you say Billy, should we apply a different rationale that relates characteristics of each group to why they might attempt to justify open-borders? Or is there SOMETHING in common between all of these groups? Humm ..... I can't imagine WHAT it could possibly be.

Anonymous DT August 10, 2016 11:41 PM  

Ahhh...two typos in one post...must be my rage.

...for you to live in...

...or your fellow citizens...



Anonymous Jack Amok August 10, 2016 11:43 PM  

Number two: Declaring that we are depriving any foreigner of any human right by not allowing them to sell their crap in our country.

Pretty damn rich, considering how many laws we have in place depriving American citizens of the right to sell crap to each other.

Or has Caplan never tried to open a boutique food business?

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 10, 2016 11:45 PM  

@48  My mostly-baked fix for that is to compose in a text window, paste into the entry box, then read the preview VERY carefully.  It gets most of my typos.  If I find one I have a nicer editor to fix it in than Blogger provides.

Blogger Nemontel August 10, 2016 11:51 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Nemontel August 10, 2016 11:53 PM  



@47 You are ill-informed my friend. I recommend you read some more and go deeper into the rabbid hole! Your red pilling proccess is not yet complete!
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/
http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/goyim/je1.pdf

Anonymous TS August 10, 2016 11:54 PM  

"Human rights was a nice concept when it was mostly for whites to understood it. Now that it's for everyone, everywhere, it feels suspiciously like serfdom and conquest. Various people have extensive rights to my labor, making me de facto a serf. They have rights to invade my land and rights to free trade, making them de facto conquerors."

Agree. It's not "rights" when those other groups "rights" usurp your rights.

Anonymous Jack Amok August 10, 2016 11:55 PM  

Or we can come up with different in-group preference rationales for why:

white libertarians support it

They erroneously think they'll be the noble Raja guiding hordes of greatful third worlders who revere them for their benevolence.

black libertarians support it

Did you ask both of them?

female libertarians support it

They never think through the details, because they assume some man somewhere will make their ideas work and deal with the consequences, so it's all upside to them.

Jewish libertarians support it

Vox already covered this one.

Catholic libertarians support it, Baptist libertarians support it

You're repeating yourself, you already said "white libertarians."

right wing libertarians support it

See "Catholic libertarians" above

left-libertarians (*cough*) (CATO/Reason) support it

This is another "you already mentioned white libertarians" point, but left-libertarians, to the extent they exist, are basically anarchists and probably think they'd like to live in the disordered mayhem of the typical third-world hellhole, but would probably think otherwise if there wasn't a nice, white suburb for them to run home to when it got ugly.

So, basically, what we have are people happy to give away what doesn't belong to them (society) in order to either make themselves feel good, or to secure some potential advantage for themselves.

Blogger Jim August 10, 2016 11:56 PM  

@52 Nemontel, will look. Thanks.

Blogger Jim August 10, 2016 11:58 PM  

@54 Jack, LOL! ... thanks for making my point. And yes, they both agreed :-)

Anonymous Sam the Man August 11, 2016 12:01 AM  

JIm...

I hate to say this but a significant number of people of the Jewish faith tradition in the US of A have decided the Messiah is not showing up, and that it is necessary to create utopia by human means. The disaster of the Soviet Union and all that came out of that has been forgotten or the lesson denied. In any case with these folks their views on matters related to this take on a tribal/religious/in-group identity and they will not change their mind, even when reality is staring them in the face.

Libertarians has one of its roots in the anarchist movement of the late 19th century. Which came out of that same utopian strain of mind set. How far it goes back is subject to debate as how wide spread or universal it is , but I would guess if you looked at voting records as a guide around 78 % of the Jewish faith tradition follow that ideal. If you do not you are subject to considerable social pressure to align.

Blogger Nick S August 11, 2016 12:02 AM  

It's complete idiocy to think that anyone living in an advantaged country actually believes the lives of their posterity will be enhanced by opening the borders to everyone wishing to escape disadvantaged countries. All they are doing is short sighted virtue signaling to their peers in order to jockey for position within their respective group. Totally egocentric relativism disguised as Randian objectivism. They are the same thing when you unpack them.

Anonymous DT August 11, 2016 12:10 AM  

@50 - thanks for the advice. I will start composing in a separate editor.

Normally I do check the preview very carefully...but I think rage did play a part. Understand I'm having this debate with a friend who hates Trump and wants to virtue signal to everyone that he's NotRacist(TM) and loves immigrants.

This same friend doesn't care at all about the people we know who have been decimated by H1B.

And no, he's not going to be a "friend" much longer.

Anonymous Discard August 11, 2016 12:14 AM  

47. Jim: A few people are libertarians, or communists, because they those ideas appeal to their reason.. Others choose an ideology because it appeals to their self-interest. My view is that Caplan is a libertarian because it's good for him and his friends. Only mental defectives are such doctrinaire libertarians as to support open borders. Do you think that Caplan has no locks on his doors?

As for in-group preference, keep in mind that we're not talking about Dutchmen here. Jews have earned their reputation for extreme clannishness. It is commanded by their religion. It shows itself in everyday encounters. Read the novels of mid-century Jewish writers. "Is it good for the Jews" is not a phrase invented by Gentiles.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 11, 2016 12:14 AM  

The thought of a Christian majority scares Bryan Kaplan.

They Scare Me by (((Caplan))).

Analysis by Luke Ford.

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 12:16 AM  

@57 Sam, your first paragraph describes Soros well.

If he's so inclined, I'm sure Vox can address your second paragraph since he was a libertarian and seems to know its history. Modern libertarianism is not related to the left-anarchists that were called libertarians in the early 20th century - of which Chomsky is probably the best known modern adherent.

And by the way @54 Jack, anarchy in modern libertarianism is unique to *right* libertarians (the Mises institute is linked by Vox over on the left side of the page - they're the anarchists). Left-libertarians (not the early ones I mentioned above - which I contend are unrelated, but modern ones like CATO, Mat Zalinski of Bleeding-heart-libertarian, Reason, etc) are quite opposed to anarchy.

Personally I see left-libertarianism as oxymoronic but that's just because be philosophically "left" requires a commitment to egalitarianism. To be a libertarian requires a commitment to non-aggression. These two positions cannot be held simultaneously.

Blogger ChicagoRefugee August 11, 2016 12:18 AM  

47. Jim

How's about you let me rephrase that a little for you, Jim?

Or we can come up with different preference rationales to explain why:

Why (((democrats))) support it.

Why (((republicans))) support it.

Why (((progressives))) support it.

Why (((neo-cons))) support it.

Why (((libertarians))) support open borders.

Why (((socialists))) support it.

Why (((capitalists))) support it.

Why (((anarchists))) support it.

Why (((business owners))) support it.

Why (((labor unions))) support it.

Why (((academia))) supports it.

Why (((media))) supports it.

Gee, can we apply a little Occam's Razor here? What could the common thread between these disparate groups possibly be?

Moron.

Blogger ChicagoRefugee August 11, 2016 12:19 AM  

My kingdom for an edit button, dammit!

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 12:32 AM  

@60 Discard. First, I don't deny in-group preferences, nor do I condemn them.

Only mental defectives are such doctrinaire libertarians as to support open borders. Do you think that Caplan has no locks on his doors?

These 2 things are unrelated. Libertarianism leads to open borders because of the non-aggression-principle and it's relationship to private property. The following video was just on put up yesterday, here's a link right to the point where Judge Napolitano describes how there are related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMbi_F5JRpE&t=5m26s . This says nothing about whether or not I lock my doors.

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 12:44 AM  

@63 ChicagoRefugee, So, Caplan, a well known and consistent libertarian, believes a libertarian doctrine, and we're supposed to conclude the reason is ... because he's Jewish. Given I'm a moron and several of the groups you listed DON'T support open-borders (republicans, labor unions), I bow to your superior intellect. BTW, while you're at it you need to inform Sanders since he's clearly confused. You know, Jewish Socialist who doesn't know what his in-group preferences are supposed to have him believe - maybe he missed the last meeting, since he opposes open-borders and want limits on immigration.

Anonymous Discard August 11, 2016 1:00 AM  

65. Jim: Open borders are doors without locks writ large. Same principle, different scale.

66. Jim: The GOP does not support open borders? Then why did they not close them when they had the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives?
Unions do not support open borders? Then why don't they do something about those open borders Democrats who need union votes?

Anonymous S E Delenda August 11, 2016 1:05 AM  

Caplan, and most economists reduce people to fungible, rational, benign free agents, because most economics is the "blackboard" economics that the late Ronald Coase argued against,and is practiced by Asperger-afflicted math savants.

If you see people as (economic)objects, you have no ability to understand the epidemiological and cultural effects of mass migration.

I also think Caplan is Christophobic, and that of course is one of the acceptable prejudices of the academy.

Anonymous Eric the Red August 11, 2016 1:12 AM  

Jim, zealot libertarians such as yourself (assuming you're not a troll) are incipient leftists. This has been discussed many times in the past in this blog. Research it, review it, read it and weep. As for any refutation you might attempt, I'm just not interested.

BTW, stop with the cute little lessons on doctrinal differences in sub-sub-political groupings. It doesn't do anything to support whatever positions you seem to think you are taking, it's boring as hell, it denotes a large aspie streak in you, and finally, nobody here is the least bit interested.

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 1:15 AM  

@67 Discard, Open borders has to do with private property (watch the video from the link for about 2 minutes) and non-aggression. If it's my property then I can sell it to, or invite others to it no matter where they're from.

Therefore, being "open borders" from a libertarian perspective is statement that your neighbor and/or the state can't presume to tell you what you can and can't do with your property. It's NO violation or your neighbors property rights for you to sell you property, or invite someone to it, who happens to be from another country. It's therefore a position that DENIES your neighbor any pretense to use force against you.

A LOCK is also to DENY the aggression of your neighbor and a protection of your property. This should be obvious.

Now. You might not agree with libertarians, but you should be able to understand that it's a consistent position.

Republican rank and file are not open-borders. The neocon establishment may be. Labor unions are not open borders. The reason Sanders isn't open-borders is the same reason Labor unions aren't - cheap immigrant labor competes with the supply of labor that's controlled by unions.

Anonymous Eric the Red August 11, 2016 1:25 AM  

"Any actual community is held together by shared habits, beliefs, and values that will go well beyond the prohibition of force and fraud. If a community cannot protect the beliefs and values that define it as a community, then it is not a community. But libertarians would allow no community or society to have any laws beyond those that prohibit force and fraud. A community or society that has no common standards other than, “You shall not commit force or fraud,” is too minimalistic to be a society in any meaningful sense. And since it is not society, it cannot be a political society either.

Libertarianism claims to be a political philosophy—indeed, the only true political philosophy. A political philosophy which precludes the existence of political society is a contradiction in terms.

Libertarianism is, in short, a transparent fraud." Lawrence Auster

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 1:31 AM  

@69 Eric Jim, zealot libertarians such as yourself (assuming you're not a troll) are incipient leftists.

One wonders why Vox keeps his links to the Mises institute and Stefan Molyneux, who's show he recently appeared on multiple times (and why I'm on my 3rd Vox book) - both right libertarian anarchists. And I wonder why he did the Tom Woods show recently. Yet another anti-SJW libertarian anarchist who, according to you, MUST be an incipient leftist.

Of course, the reasoning you provide for your case is also top notch. "Research it, review it, read it and weep." Way to go Red. I'm convinced. Especially when you've demonstrated your ability to absorb other points of view with the refrain "I'm just not interested."

it denotes a large aspie streak in you

And replying to commenters "[you're] just not interested" in is what? Plain autism?



Anonymous Jack Amok August 11, 2016 1:32 AM  

Open borders has to do with private property

Fine, so long as you don't mind me shooting you with my .30-06 Remington, so long as I do the shooting from my own private property. Or do you think you have a right to stop me from doing something on my private property that spills over onto your property?

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 1:39 AM  

@71, Any actual community is held together by shared habits, beliefs, and values that will go well beyond the prohibition of force and fraud.

True enough.

If a community cannot protect the beliefs and values that define it as a community, then it is not a community.

Arguable but granted.

But libertarians would allow no community or society to have any laws beyond those that prohibit force and fraud.

This is simply false and confuses voluntary communities with state force. Libertarians aren't opposed to rules and communities and laws of those communities. Only the act of forcing people to join them. And when those communities police themselves and their beliefs WHAT THEY'RE DOING is combating the "fraud" of someone that joined disingenuously or NOW wants to break the agreement they made when they joined.

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 1:40 AM  

@73 Jack, really?

Blogger ChicagoRefugee August 11, 2016 1:46 AM  

Labor unions DON'T support open borders? The AFL-CIO (http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Immigration) and the SEIU (http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Immigration) will no doubt be astonished to hear that. Granted, they use the rhetorical cloak of "comprehensive immigration reform," but they - and many other unions - long ago sold out their workers' interests on this issue in favor of progressive shibboleths.

As for the Republicans, it is true that NARALT. Which is the reason for the hysteria over Donald Trump and his supporters - the GOPe has discovered among its base a disconcerting number of heretics who DON'T support the open borders dogma of the GOP establishment.

But as you know, I was engaging in rhetoric, not dialectic, so I didn't include the bloody footnotes.

FTR, you don't disprove a group tendency by noting that not each and every single member of the group shares that tendency. Official, organized Judiasm - as expressed in its many NGOs, political associations, and lobbying organizations, is all in on open borders. I've often heard the sentiment expressed with religious justification or as "an expression of Jewish values." The fact that dissenters to the group consensus exist proves precisely squat. Bernie is once again gloriously irrelevant. SQUIRREL!

Maybe your boy Caplan does support open borders from a totally disinterested perspective of intellectual consistency. But, knowing human nature, it's just-as-if-not-more likely that he chose his political ideology because it conformed with his (((self-interest))).

When the overwhelming majority of a single "group identity" adopts a political stance based on their perceived self-interest (and damn the consequences to others!) it is difficult to identify the few outliers who share that stance only as a matter of pure disinterested intellectual purity.

Claiming the group consensus doesn't exist is moronic. Claiming that any particular individual not personally known to you has adopted his ideas in spite of, rather than because of, that group consensus is only slightly less so. In the end, why should any outsider care? What difference, after all, does it make?

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 1:48 AM  

@69 Eric, (assuming you're not a troll)

I'm not here anonymously. Click on the link. Look around (although I haven't updated my site in about 5 years). If you're in the Philly area you're welcome over. We can pound the table over a beer.

Anonymous Jack Amok August 11, 2016 1:49 AM  

Jack, really?

Bang.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit August 11, 2016 1:50 AM  

Or we can come up with different in-group preference rationales for why: white libertarians support it, black libertarians support it, female libertarians support it, Jewish libertarians support it (<- Bryan is one of these), Catholic libertarians support it, Baptist libertarians support it, right wing libertarians support it (Tom Woods/Bob Murphy), left-libertarians (*cough*) (CATO/Reason) support it ...

Good luck, Jim.

When it comes to the Race Explains Everything mindset, you've got the SJWs screaming that the swamp is sacred, and all its emenations are Holy, and the REEs protesting that, no, they're toxic, and we're off on one side flailing about trying to explain to both of them about mosquitos, disease vectors and malaria.

Like I said, good luck with that.

At the moment, we need the fracking swamp drained and the REEs seem to have the only rhetoric that will counter the SJWs.

And it doesn't help that quite a lot of libertarianism seems to involve the notion that Deet is Just Wrong.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 11, 2016 2:05 AM  

Dear Jimmigrant: How much more likely is a Jew to support open borders for America than a WASP?

They are truly dedicated Libertarians. "Sic semper tyrannis", the crowd chanted. "We have no king but Caesar!"

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 2:07 AM  

@79 The Overgrown Hobbit, Wow. Well said. I'm not sure REEs have the only rhetoric that can fight the SJW toxin given some of the people also fighting are the likes of Milo, Tom Woods, Stefan, and more. But I'll stick around while longer unless Vox decides to boot me.

Blogger Groot August 11, 2016 2:09 AM  

Jim, with all due respect, you are an idiot. Almost everything you say is stupidly ignorant. Chomsky is not a libertarian, in any way, ever. Mises was not an anarchist. "To be a libertarian requires a commitment to non-aggression" is ahistorical asininity. Please tell me you're in junior high school.

Anonymous Eric the Red August 11, 2016 2:13 AM  

Jim (and for the last time) you are an idiot.

So I'll spell it out for you. The unhindered right to sell your property to someone from another country means that your are selling it to someone who does not have the same cultural and societal values as the community within which you reside. Thus you undercut the values of that community, and also weaken it as a political entity. Thus whatever libertarian philosophy you thought you were supporting will ultimately be destroyed the more its members support open borders. There can be no 'voluntary community' if there is no like-minded community in the first place. An open borders position proves libertarianism is a fraud. As a zealot, you will refuse to accept that conclusion, because real-world situations are clearly not your forte.

Finally, I am not here to categorize, refute, or commend the so-called libertarianism of Vox Day, Stefan Molyneux, or anyone else. They can do that by themselves, and their own self-categorization would be at odds with what ascribe. But in any case that's all irrelevant detail, as again you can't constrain your aspie tendencies and stick to the main point.

Last response, since it's such an obvious waste of time.. I'm done with you, chuck-0.

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 2:19 AM  

@82 Groot, please tell me you can read. I never said Chomsky was a "libertarian" in the modern sense. Chomsky CALLS himself a libertarian BUT WHAT HE MEANS by it is the early 20th century marxist/syndicalist libertarian. MY POINT was that these are UNRELATED (and diametrically opposite).

I never SAID Mises was an anarchist. I said the fellows over at "The Mises Institute" were ... and ... they are. Do you want a list? Deist (President), Rockwell (Founder), Tucker, Woods, Murphy, Hoppe (Fellows). There may be a few that aren't but I don't know who they are. This is not exactly a controversial point.

"To be a libertarian requires a commitment to non-aggression" is ahistorical asininity. ... ah yeah ... tell Rothbard that.

Actually, I'm 50 years old. But since you apparently can't read (granted, comprehension may be the actual problem), I'll assume you'll bring it up again later.



Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 2:25 AM  

Actually Eric, you might want to actually read a libertarian on the topic.

The unhindered right to sell your property to someone from another country means that your are selling it to someone who does not have the same cultural and societal values as the community within which you reside.

If you bought the property with a set of community rules that preclude the resale of that property to people of a different race, then it would be a violation of a contractual agreement to do so. Hans Herman Hoppe has written about such communities. There is no contradiction or any problem between this situation and libertarianism. There simply isn't no matter how much you insist there must be ... after all, if an idiot is right and you're wrong, what does that make you?


Anonymous Discard August 11, 2016 2:33 AM  

70. Jim: There is no consistency in having a lock on your own door to deny entry to a few aggressors, but opposing a wall on the border to deny entry to millions of aggressors. Will you wait until they outvote you and seize your property for being a rich White?

Your neighbors and the state rightly Do have a say in what you do with or on your property, if what you do threatens others. Bringing Somalians or Guatamalans in is a very clear threat. They will destroy the town, as many Americans who have experienced these people can testify.

Libertarianism is a game, played out on an imaginary society. Do you imagine that your principles will keep the 3rd Worlders from taking what they want when they are the majority? Childish.

And if labor unions are against immigration, why haven't they made a stink about it? Why has it been left to Donald Trump to finally force the issue?
They should, of course, oppose immigration, but they simply don't. Probably something to do with union bosses being paid to keep quiet, just like Black leaders.

Does Sanders actually have a voting record of opposing immigration? Or did he just make a few speeches to selected working class audiences?

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 11, 2016 2:48 AM  

Is Jim a baby boomer? Depends.

Libertarianism - the failure to comprehend that genetic interest predates words. Cf. Houyhnhnm.

Blogger EscapeVelocity August 11, 2016 2:57 AM  

Bingo VD.

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 3:26 AM  

@86 Will you wait until they outvote you and seize your property for being a rich White?

The problem is democracy. We've known for a long time democracy is incompatible with freedom. This illustrates why.

the state rightly Do have a say in what you do with or on your property

The state's say, along with your neighbor's, has led to what we have now. How's the working out?

if what you do threatens others. Bringing Somalians or Guatamalans in is a very clear threat.

Without state property and their use of force, how would this happen? How many Somalians could afford a home in your community, given the community rules would even allow them? It took the state to force desegregation. The state creates asylums in Europe for refugees. Where would we be if it didn't have that power?

And if labor unions are against immigration, why haven't they made a stink about it? Why has it been left to Donald Trump to finally force the issue?
Some are supporting Trump and more are considering it. This is one of the reasons.

Sanders softened his stance when he realized it wouldn't play well with the left. Prior to him running for president he was all for protectionism and against unfettered immigration. I don't know the details. This was brought up by his detractors.

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 4:20 AM  

An overview (granted, ABC news) on the history of Labor Unions and their relationship to immigration: http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/unions-stand-immigration-reform/story?id=18288148

Along with Sanders, they're softening. Apparently, as their number dwindle, they see immigrants as potential new members.

Anonymous Discard August 11, 2016 4:20 AM  

89. No democracy. What then? Rule by a warrior aristocracy? The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth? Libertarian commissars? A Fuhrer with the Mandate of Heaven? A disinterested caste of judges?

The alternative to the State having a say is your neighbor shooting your barking dog and burning your beehives. Think Scots borderers, Mafia enforcers, and aspiring rappers with guns.

Large corporations bring in cheap labor. Have you never seen them? Illegal immigration is a true free market. All very libertarian of them.
And what is this community that establishes rules to allow or forbid Somalians? Some kind of government? Don't the individual property owners have the right to stick 100 skinnys into shacks on their own land?
And what of those good Americans who don't make enough money to live on the big hill, and have Somalis camped out in the alley behind their house?

Libertarianism is a fantasy for intelligent but simple minded people. Instead of dealing with the messy complexities of real life, they think they can set a few rules that will take care of all situations. The average White American doesn't want to live by their rules, the average non-White or non-American cannot live by their rules, but they double down and say, Bring the whole 3rd World in here and we'll make money off them and use that money to isolate ourselves from the troubles they bring.
How's that working out?

Anonymous Bz August 11, 2016 4:36 AM  

Is it too obvious to point out that libertarians in order to minimize harm first need to implement the rest of their program (like dismantling the welfare state and implementing uncompromising property laws and total freedom of association and whatnot) before opening the borders to all and sundry? We have already seen the disaster of open borders in actual existing societies.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 11, 2016 4:37 AM  

Just as Marxist central planning cannot replace the ancient market, so Libertarian contractual economics cannot replace the ancient battlefield.

Wherever men are, there is war. Wherever war is, there are tribes. Tribes are tribal, not Libertarian.

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 4:48 AM  

@92 bz, I agree with you completely

Blogger Noah B August 11, 2016 4:49 AM  

Rootless cosmopolitan, that is.

Blogger residentMoron August 11, 2016 5:46 AM  

"First, I think the effects of group identity are not only massive, but massively unjust. There's nothing wrong with eating traditional food or wearing a celebratory hat. But humans' love of our own group is a fundamental cause of unjust treatment of outgroups."

Yeah, this is bollocks.

First, if the "outgroup" stayed home, nobody would be able to be unfair to them based on their ethnic identity.

Secondly, in spite of knowing that humans beings innately and universally treat outlanders as lesser than their own kind, he still wants them to be systematically subjected to this treatment because he's all about the fairness.

So, not just bollocks but incoherent bollocks. Translating his cuckspeak, his "reasons" look like this:

1. Virtue signal
2. Virtue signal
3. Virtue signal

Fuck off, mate.

Blogger VD August 11, 2016 7:05 AM  

So, Caplan, a well known and consistent libertarian, believes a libertarian doctrine, and we're supposed to conclude the reason is ... because he's Jewish.

Yes. And if Caplan ever endorses open and unlimited immigration into Israel, I am willing to reconsider the matter. I have been unable to find a single statement of his criticizing the Law of Return for limiting immigration into Israel to Jews, even though he references it, or supporting the right of Palestinians to live in Israel.

Until I do, I will assume that his position is based on his ethnic heritage and not his ideology.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 11, 2016 7:15 AM  

I can see bone from that shiv.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 11, 2016 7:23 AM  

tz wrote:The capitalist will sell you the Occam's brand razor they will use to slit your throat.

The rootless capitalist will sell razors to minority groups for food stamps, funded by the taxes of the people whose throats coincidentally are slit.

Blogger Jim Carroll August 11, 2016 10:13 AM  

@97 if Caplan ever endorses open and unlimited immigration into Israel, I am willing to reconsider the matter.

Good point. It presupposes you're right and I could simply disagree, but it's an empirically verifiable assertion. I've written him in the past and heard back from him. I'll ask. If he responds, I'll let you know.

Anonymous nil August 11, 2016 10:52 AM  

I believe Caplan said he supports open borders in Israel/Palestine as well, on the grounds that letting in waves of random Hindus, Buddhists, and Catholics would dilute the current local conflict between Jews and Muslims. That's completely insane, but so is everything else the man writes.

Blogger Jim Carroll August 11, 2016 10:59 AM  

@101 nil, any reference handy? As it is, lacking Vox's prose, I'd need to work pretty hard to craft an email that might have the slightest chance to be answered.

Blogger Jim Carroll August 11, 2016 12:08 PM  

Okay. It's really tough to find something that he's written on the topic and it's not for a lack of Bryan having been asked about it. I was about to concede that he seems like he's avoiding the topic. Then I read his EconLib piece on white nationalism (instead of having previously just "search in page" for references to Israel), he says this:

Several point out that [Jewish anti-white nationalist Rosensaft] is a staunch Zionist, and quip, "Nationalism for me but not for thee." I'm a staunch anti-nationalist, so I'm tempted agree with this critique but "level down" - to embrace the view that every form of nationalism is just as bad as white nationalism.

So he explicitly admits many anti-white nationalists are hypocritical, specifically with respect to Israel, but argues the fix for the hypocrisy is to go all the way.

Blogger Forbes August 11, 2016 1:53 PM  

>"Bryan Caplan...remains a cosmopolitan and open borders advocate because he sees it as being in the interest of the group with which he identifies."

Bingo! We have a winner.

Blogger Groot August 11, 2016 3:24 PM  

Jim, you have the gift of negative persuasion. Every utterance sparks an outrage of disagreement, no matter the sense of your intent. As a libertarian, I'm sure there is much we agree on. You, as a libertarian wormtongue, however, make me despair of convincing the midwits. You are a Jonah.

Anonymous Bobby Farr August 11, 2016 3:36 PM  

@72 Molyneux doesn't support open borders. He acknowledged that open borders may work within the confines of an anarchist's mind but in the real world is a government program where politicians steal from the taxpayer to pay the dregs of the third world to migrate and support their continued hold on power.

Blogger Jim Carroll August 11, 2016 4:26 PM  

@105 Groot, you're about as articulate as your namesake. Did you forget the tripe you blasted in your first comment to me? You know, the stuff I demonstrated was a complete misreading that you've yet to own up to.

Since you've shown you couldn't read what I wrote previously, shown you jumped to conclusions without asking for clarification, why should there be any credence in any other judgement you make?

You've demonstrated stupidity and a lack of humility. You F-tard.

Blogger Jim Carroll August 11, 2016 4:31 PM  

@106 Bobby, yes. I never said he did. I simply pointed out he was a libertarian anarchist. I haven't missed a video of his in years. FWIW, I agree with him on open borders for the same reasons. Lew Rockwell is another libertarian anarchist opposed to open borders.

Anonymous Random American August 11, 2016 5:38 PM  

So, between this thread and a couple of facebook conversations with libertarians and ancaps, I think I am gaining an understanding of how to be a consistent libertarian.

I must ignore everything history and experience tell me about group identity, human social and political behavior and predictable voting patterns, and simply believe that I will magically be able to persuade people to respect my rights when I am part of a 10% minority. Even when it is also in the interest of the majority to ignore my ideas about my rights, and when that majority, by its words and deeds, shows that it has no intention of respecting my rights.

The strength of my belief and the pure reason of my speech will no doubt convince people who both vote to confiscate my property every chance they get, and who have no problem putting their ethnic group interest above every other concern and every other group or principle, to see the light.

I'm not really a religious guy, that's a whole lot of faith to keep against all evidence.

How many turf wars, La Raza type supremacist groups, and imported socialist/democrat voters does it take for a libertarian to realize that no matter how logical and philosophically pure their ideal political/economic system may be, it only matters in the real world insofar as others can be convinced or forced to go along with it?

Blogger Groot August 11, 2016 6:59 PM  

@Jim,

A Jim-heavy thread yields not a single positive response to Jim. Ponder that. Maybe it's you (via Ace). Fascinating, almost troll-worthy.

I'm really amazed at your "smear everything with shit, maybe it'll work this time" approach, and the train is fine, but, OK, here's one of your points.

"the left-anarchists that were called libertarians in the early 20th century - of which Chomsky is probably the best known modern adherent." Chomsky is sometimes lumped in with so-called "libertarian socialists," a risible oxymoron. It's like equating science with junk science.

Here is Chomsky himself: "libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny". Not a libertarian.

You, again: "anarchy in modern libertarianism is unique to *right* libertarians."

So, even if we stipulate that Chomsky was a left libertarian, you would deny his ability to be an anarchist. Just google Chomsky and anarchy: you'll find a plethora.

But, really, it's besides the point. If you can walk into a birthday party, say "Happy birthday!" and find that people get offended, perhaps some self-examination is in order.

Anonymous The Old Ways Are New Again August 11, 2016 7:26 PM  

Discard
The alternative to the State having a say is your neighbor shooting your barking dog and burning your beehives. Think Scots borderers...

Keep a civil tongue when ye go on about me ancestors, lad.
Me steel bonnet has gotten a wee bit tarnished, and is in need of polishin' but first I'll be sharpening the skein dubh, purely for the sake of manners to be sure.


Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 8:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Jim August 11, 2016 8:57 PM  

@111 Wow. Completely ignorant of the subject matter, you double down (Vox's second law of SJWs - they always double down).

Do you realize you just tried to quote Chomsky to prove he WASN'T a libertarian. And then you used Chomsky as an example of a libertarian who's an anarchist. While it's probably pointless to go further with someone that has the reasoning capacity that allows that all within a few hundred characters, I'll amuse myself:

The point of that early comment was to counter the assertion that modern libertarianism (Rothbard, Mises, Cato, Reason, etc) stemmed from the left-libertarianism of the late 19th century (see @58 Sam the man). Of course, countering a specific assertion point-by-point in this forum gets you awarded an accusation of "stop with the cute little lessons on doctrinal differences in sub-sub-political groupings" by morons like Eric in Bed (see @70) .

My point, AS WELL AS CHOMSKY'S in the article you link to, was that what you and I would call "libertarianism," ISN'T that 19th century libertarianism. Neither share the same roots.( <- hint: This is actually arguable – I noticed you didn't call me on that though)

That's why Chomsky keeps qualifying it. From the article:

"Well what's called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, ..."
"Yes, and so well that kind of libertarianism, in my view, ..."

Chomsky was a left libertarian, you would deny his ability to be an anarchist

WTF! You QUOTED me: "Modern libertarianism is not related to the left-anarchists that were called libertarians in the early 20th century - of which Chomsky is probably the best known modern adherent."

I actually SAID he was an anarchist.

You take issue with: "And by the way [...], anarchy in modern libertarianism is unique to *right* libertarians"

Go back and look at the context. What followed that?

"Left-libertarians (not the early ones I mentioned above - which I contend are unrelated, but modern ones like CATO, Mat Zalinski of Bleeding-heart-libertarian, Reason, etc) are quite opposed to anarchy."

See? I even qualified it for those with 140 character comprehensions so they wouldn't have too much difficulty. I never counted on someone that wouldn't even be able to follow a discussion through a single tweet.

Now, you made two accusations. I called you on them. You doubled down by ignoring one (I never said Mises was an anarchist), made an ass of yourself on another ("Chomsky is not a libertarian, in any way, ever," - for another reference on this see the Wikipedia article on "left libertarianism" with Chomsky's picture) and pulling a new one out of your ass (that ostensibly I made an unqualified statement that only right libertarians are anarchists) that you should now be thoroughly humiliated about.

Please tell me you're in junior high school.

A Jim-heavy thread yields not a single positive response to Jim

I'm not really much into virtue signaling. Sorry. I don't care in the least. I learned a few things from people that were willing to give me references and from Vox making points that made me dig. And, of course, I enjoyed this chat.

Blogger Groot August 12, 2016 12:06 AM  

@113. Jim:
"A Jim-heavy thread yields not a single positive response to Jim"
"I'm not really much into virtue signaling."

You might say your greatest virtue is not-virtue-signaling. Thanks for signaling that. Plus, the more people dislike you, the greater the virtue. You're winning like Charlie Sheen.

You have the social skills of a... oh. My condolences. I, like most who responded, just assumed you were a troll, so did not put much thought into dismissing you. Just going with the autism hypothesis, thereby bypassing your off-putting tone, I'll concede your responses show enough intelligence to make me want to go back and re-read your comments.

First I quoted Chomsky hating on libertarians to show he isn't one. Done. You lose this point, even if you call me an ass or a poopyhead.

Then I said nothing whatsoever about "Chomsky as an example of a libertarian who's an anarchist." You just made that up. He is not a libertarian. I did mock the concept of a libertarian socialist, thereby dismissing it. It is a foolish concept, like a short, tall, fat, skinny man.

I agree with you that modern libertarianism does not stem from anarchism, but as you note we never disagreed on that.

"anarchy in modern libertarianism is unique to *right* libertarians"

I said that "even if we stipulate that Chomsky was a left libertarian," i.e., "even if we concede for the sake of argument though not in real life," but this is a quibble. Chomsky remains a non-libertarian, wherever his picture may appear, and whatever addled group claims him. I was just pointing out a logical error, not really disagreeing. Your logical error doesn't humiliate me.

Blogger Bob Roddis August 12, 2016 5:26 AM  

Which is what?

Blogger Jim Carroll August 12, 2016 9:05 AM  

@114 Groot, You have major comprehension problems. Have you been evaluated?

The only logical error in this conversation (that's been pointed out at least) is your attempt at recovery from stupidity without capitulation. There's no difference between you and the SJW in methodology. None.

If you actually aren't humiliated by what I pointed out in the previous comment about the reasoning you displayed, then I feel even sorrier for you. It means the comprehension problems are actually there.

Ask yourself, how many other people that have engaged you have made the same observations? Or is it that you've spent your entire life only in places where you feel comfortable taunting from the safety of the crowd? Like a child point-and-screeching while peeking out from behind his mother's legs.

Take Vox's advice. Rule 11 of the blog: In general, you will be well-served if you stop to think for thirty seconds and read everything twice before responding to it. It's also wise to ask if your assumptions are correct before launching critical attacks.

Blogger Groot August 12, 2016 3:14 PM  

@117. Jim Carroll:

Oh well. So much for the intelligence part. And so much for the "not caring in the least" part.

Gamma much? Are you actually crying as you pound your keyboard while yelling at the monitor? Get a grip, little girl.

"stupidity... SJW... taunting... point-and-screeching while peeking out from behind his mother's legs"

Gamma rage is funny to behold. Are you traumatized by comments on a blog on the internet, just because every single comment in reply to you seemed to think you smelled funny and were fat and ugly?

"how many other people that have engaged you have made the same observations?"

IRL, no one, ever. On the internet, keyboard courage has inspired a couple of times, but very rarely.

Blogger Augustus Octavian August 12, 2016 5:50 PM  

@98
Vox, he did in a AMA on reddit two years ago here.

"Yes. But I wouldn't strongly object if they excluded people with violent criminal records or denied new-comers the vote. (Same goes for countries other than Israel, too)."

"The Middle East really could use a lot more diversity. One religion gives you totalitarianism. Two gives you civil strife. A hundred gives you peace. (With apologies to Voltaire)."

Blogger Jim August 12, 2016 8:00 PM  

@119 Augustus, Heh. I ran across that when I was searching. I thought it was so outrageous, even for him, I was skeptical it was real. Maybe that's what nil @102 was referring to. Thanks.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts