Geniuses of HL : Let's admit a time we were wrong.

[Im Kemet Rocky & I like penis]

I was wrong about Capitalism and Libertarianism.

and I was wrong about socialism.


I think having social welfare is appropriate. This is something that I have been thinking about for a while now.

I don't think that people really have much control over their life outcomes. It's mostly determined by Genetics (70%) and Environment (30%). The capitalist system is an extension of nature's system of evolution. The key benefit to capitalism is a more efficient allocation of resources. This is made possible because capitalism uses prices as a very close approximation of value. The market can make a good valuation of nearly everything, including people and culture. From these prices and valuations we can better determine what means of production is better for society, which people are more efficient and more valuable than others, and what cultures are more productive and efficient than others. Capitalism can quickly identify winners and losers with prices and valuations that are only made possible with a market. Sure, the benefit of economic incentives are somewhat importance, but it is my belief that driven individuals will find success whether they live under capitalism or not. It's the efficiency of capitalism that is its key benefit.


However, What is the definition of a just society? One where the inefficient members of society are quickly weeded-out and made to suffer? While the superior people are afforded lives of insane luxury? Is that really the ideal? I don't think that is the way that it should be. everyone should be able to live fulfilling lives--have families and have a sense of accomplishment before they die. It shouldn't be based on how smart they are or how fast they can learn Graduate level geometry. Moreever, Someone's happiness shouldn't be based on how much they are willing to sacrifice for the future or how much discipline they have. Not everyone has the same level of innate discipline. The ants have an innate and probably genetic advantage over the grasshoppers. The Ant's should help the grasshopers because the Grasshoppers have no ability to mimic the discipline of the ants. They just have different natures, and they should complement each other in a moral society not compete with each other.


Because not a single person on this earth has any sort of control of their characteristics or attributes that will define them, so why should they be punished for that?

Given the growing amount of evidence on Genes (even epigenetics) and determinism. I think the Neanderthal thought experiment really illustrates the problems with LIbertarianism.


It would be a moral duty. It is our moral duty to remedy the handicaps that the unfortunate have due to factors outside their volition.

Sure, Years of capitalism would definitely accelerate the progress of mankind, but what would be the human cost of that progress? Maybe progress is not the end goal?

 

[Im Kemet Rocky & I like penis]

I let a cracka into my circle...

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

I thought Ron Paul was what America needed for ~2-3 months

I'm going to base this on what I've seen from Gary Johnson (Johnston?) and not Ron Paul necessarily. I think libertarians have some good ideas.

Like legalizing drugs, non-interventionist military policies and replacing the corporate tax code with a straight consumption tax no bullshyt loopholes or anything. Obviously those would probably all be far-fetched ideas even if one of them got elected.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

I'm going to base this on what I've seen from Gary Johnson (Johnston?) and not Ron Paul necessarily. I think libertarians have some good ideas.

Like legalizing drugs, non-interventionist military policies and replacing the corporate tax code with a straight consumption tax no bullshyt loopholes or anything. Obviously those would probably all be far-fetched ideas even if one of them got elected.

I don't hate everything they have to say, even still.

But i'm not riding with a guy that has overt ties to the KKK nah

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

I don't hate everything they have to say, even still.

But i'm not riding with a guy that has overt ties to the KKK nah

yeah I hear you and some of their policies are way too extreme.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

oh yea.. I always thought FDIC insuring up to $250,000 of your money was a good thing

what's wrong with it?

 

[No1]

I'm going to base this on what I've seen from Gary Johnson (Johnston?) and not Ron Paul necessarily. I think libertarians have some good ideas.

Like legalizing drugs, non-interventionist military policies and replacing the corporate tax code with a straight consumption tax no bullshyt loopholes or anything. Obviously those would probably all be far-fetched ideas even if one of them got elected.

That's how they got all of us when we were young. Then we start to think about what they're saying more and we're like

 

[DEAD7]

@ how specific everyone is about what libertarian positives they agree(d) with, and how vague things becomes when they get to why they "grew out of it" .

 

[Brown_Pride]

Not to counter my own argument but...

"Visualizing the realism of life in actuality
Fuk who's the baddest a person's status depends on salary"

Ironically that was the verse that had me thinking money was the road to happiness, I confused power with happiness. I was wrong

[/quote]

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

@ how specific everyone is about what libertarian positives they agree(d) with, and how vague things becomes when they get to why they "grew out of it" .

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

It's not bullshyt.

America is a highly developed country. it has been the center of human innovation for quite some time now. This didn't happen because of altruism. America is here because one race was enslaved and another was nearly wiped out. The Europeans benefited highly from the destruction of others. They spread there genes to ever corner of the world. At a high level, that was probably one of the most rapid genetic expansions in earth's history.


In fact, all of us are here, and presently alive, because some unfortunate group of people didn't win. Indians, like you, only occupied India because your ancestors the Indo-Aryans, totally overtook and subjugated the native Black people of India. These Black people were forced to into scattered islands in the Indian Ocean, but now Indian expansion into their areas has totally wiped them out. Only a dozen or so are left currently. There are only a few years left to study them before they are gone permanently. What has been built on native lands of the Indian Blacks? Indian Cities and Farms. The Indians have moved the Blacks to "Protected Grounds" where they are basically taken care of like Pets or Animals in a Zoo. It's the same story retold everywhere in the world.

Stronger groups overtake weaker groups. There are so many examples of this in the modern world, in recorded history, and in the human fossil record. Altruism may have help the members of the same tribe, but clearly a lack of altruism between tribes clearly benefited the ancestors of today's human. All of us, even modern day africans, come from a population that replaced some other population no more than 10,000 to 20,000 years ago.

No Gundam, this is grossly simplified narrative, cherrypicking only factors convenient for your argument. To clarify, I said your statement "Progress for the human race wasn't achieved by altruism," was absolute bullshyt because altruism has always been an intrinsic part of the human experience, rooted in our biology and manifested in all our works. I wasn't making the claim that altruism is THE proximate cause of "progress" (however that is defined), as opposed to its binary opposite of selfishness.

Everything on the palate of the human nature has attributed to our progress. Altruism has been present in animals with high level cerebral function like other primates, elephants, and dolphins predating humans. Reducing the totality of human progress to "stronger groups taking over weaker groups" is silly. How did "stronger" groups even develop the capacity to take over others? Besides disease and climate, technological innovations (often achieved by happenstance of geographical factors and the proliferation of knowledge) which were often born of the selfless desire to improve living conditions for the collective. Do you think the person who invented the wheel did it purely out of selfish desire? No, it was an innovation that made tribal life easier for everyone. Were all the great scientists and inventors and statesmen and engineers and architects and poets and social leaders simply inspired by selfishness? Of course not. Also, the arc of history shows we get more altruistic the more our civilization advances. We used to sacrifice children like it was nothing. Now we put people in jail for animal cruelty. Why is that? Does our innate nature somehow get turned on its by more comfortable living? Or are you ready to concede that this reductionist, immutable conception of human nature you have flawed?

Every aspect of humanity of our humanity has helped mold where we are. Attempting to reduce it to just selfish desire and citing warfare is just Randian bullshyt that doesn't hold up in the face of history, anthropology, or biology. I think you free marketeer/objectivist types are so invested in trying to convince yourselves that selfishness is the end all/be all because it is for you, and you want the rest of us to be just like you. But we're not.

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

@ how specific everyone is about what libertarian positives they agree(d) with, and how vague things becomes when they get to why they "grew out of it" .

You haven't grown out of it yet?

Truth be told anarchy is becoming more appealing, it is the logical conclusion if morality is the goal... i'm still letting it roll around though.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I won't even front, I didn't even listen to the album of the strength of that Pharrel shyt when people were saying that's what he was going with for that album. So I've never even heard that song, Common's one of my 5 favorite emcees ever and I put him on probation from my top 10 for 6 months off the strength of that video

I've been a fan since Can I Borrow A Dollar, and that album tainted his place in history to me. Not only was it a blatant "sellout," but it was garbage. If you're going to "sellout" you have to put out quality product, or it makes it about twice as worse than if you just put out an honest dud. I listened to that album once and recycling binned it.

 

[DEAD7]

You haven't grown out of it yet?

I've grown out of the absolutes... and accepted that morality isn't the goal of the majority.

 

[acri1]

I've grown out of the absolutes... and accepted that morality isn't the goal of the majority.

You just don't seem to at all get that morality is often subjective.

Morality isn't just a matter of anybody being free to do anything they want regardless of the consequences. A lot of people consider things like excessive income inequality or living in a society where kids go hungry to be moral issues.

@ how specific everyone is about what libertarian positives they agree(d) with, and how vague things becomes when they get to why they "grew out of it" .

We eventually realized what the ultimate outcome of Libertarian economics would be (ie. plutocracy...well, worse plutocracy) and decided that it wasn't desirable.