Business & Finance BlackRock attempting to monopolize housing

JagerIV

Well-known member
And this right here just underlines how full of shit you are. :rolleyes:

Eh, I've summarized what I've seen above. I don't expect it to really convince a libertarian with much more success than pointing out how stupid communes are convinces a communist to give up their world view. People don't work that way.

However, as someone who used to work with the college Libertarians, I've had my "actually, communes are pretty stupid" moment with libertarianism, and was helped over the threshold by Abhorsen's terrible arguments for libertarianism in that earlier thread, and none of his further arguments have done much but reinforce this opinion. I've seen too many Libertarians flip to communism, just as so many liberals last time did, to deny that there is a there there, and I've summarized above and in that earlier thread what I think the there there is, and why people can so seamlessly move from Libertarian's to communist without changing all that many beliefs.

As Bear Ribbs highlighted, Abhorsen thinks in the exact same way as the abolish the police BLM people. The solution for both in Anarchy. He's come out before that the States role is to correct injustice, and that this takes presence over self rule. The NAP seems to mean something, but can really mean anything, like "oppression" does for the communist. Complaining that regulatory capture is possible is no more useful than the communists complaining that people have to work to eat.

Every law is written to the benefit of someone. Tort requires some regulations at least on what a reasonable response is. How much of an asshole does someone have to be before I can shoot them?

You need Open and Closed spaces, Private and Communal Property. Communism attacks closed space and private property, Libertarians attack the open space and communal property necessary for the Private and Open places to exist. The end result is still Closed, communal property.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
ommunism attacks closed space and private property, Libertarians attack the open space and communal property necessary for the Private and Open places to exist.
Libertarians are obsessed with private property and property rights. Again, this is why you're full of shit. As I said in your other thread, all you're doing is trying to connect one thing you don't like to another.

The reason Abhorsen is full of shit is that he's blind to the obvious about property companies like this trying to secure a monopoly for themselves and to the fact that they (and other businesses) use government to help them with this goal. He is being every bit as knee-jerk about it as you are.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
Okay, I realize I'm the one who started it but I think the Libertarianism derail is going too far now.

I'm not sure. I think part of the discussion on this issue is a Libertarian vs non-libertarian world view, so its still pretty relavant.

Libertarians are obsessed with private property and property rights. Again, this is why you're full of shit. As I said in your other thread, all you're doing is trying to connect one thing you don't like to another.

Yes, they are obsessed with private property, and attack communal property that upholds that private property, which, I believe, seems to as the natural end state result in the effective abolishment of private property.

The toy example is roads. If you own your house, but the road to your house is rendered private with no communal right to it, your property rights are de-facto ended, because the person who owns the road has near unlimited coercive power if not limited by some communal property rights.

Private Property exists, or at least a lot of its practical value, rests in a nest of communal property rights. The house has most of its value because of the neighborhood and town its in. And every household has an interest in the health and flavor of the neighborhood and town he resides in. Libertarian's generally see these communal property rights as limits on freedom (which they are) and seek to destroy them. The way one generally does this by seizing the power from the locals and concentrating the power up. Because, well, the NAP goes out the window when people use freedom to do non-libertarian ends.

So, yes, their obsessed with private property and property rights (like the communists). The communists go against the property rights directly, the Libertarians go against the communal institutions that support private property and thus indirectly killing it off, as it leaves only the all powerful central state to come in and replace local organizations. So, in their desire to "protect" property rights, they destroy everything that sustains it, and end up supporting the all powerful state as the only solution.

And thus they act as the handmaiden of socialism, as Abhorsen seems to be doing here: a government backed company buying up 50% of property looks an awful lot like de facto socialism, which is in its most direct, naked form the merging of Business and Government into a centralized planning committee. Civil society of independent home owners in towns they control is being destroyed by this kind of thing as peoples communities are destroyed, but because the powers that be are doing this with the business hand rather than the government hand, the people have no right to complain about the loss of practical private property in their zip code.

And so we move closer to socialism with the stamp of approval of the libertarians. Handmaidens of socialism.

edit: its like when you have a good faith communist who truly is not a tankie: they truly don't mean to implement a totalitarian authoritarian hell state, and truly do what equality and freedom for everyone. They're program is still going to bring about the gulags, they just honestly don't believe they will.

The standard Libertarian doesn't mean to bring about socialism, its just the natural outcome of whatever level their program can actually get implemented.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
This is pretty much you trying to connect libertarians and commies:
1vyhe4.jpg


There is no real connection there. The closest you get are the anarcho-communists, and the only real overlap with anarcho-capitalists is that they both think their systems can work without government. That's about it. Anything else is just you twisting yourself around into pretzels.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
This is pretty much you trying to connect libertarians and commies:
1vyhe4.jpg


There is no real connection there. The closest you get are the anarcho-communists, and the only real overlap with anarcho-capitalists is that they both think their systems can work without government. That's about it. Anything else is just you twisting yourself around into pretzels.

Not an argument, but by your smug sense of superiority your not interested in one either. Sorry for wasting a reply. I'll remember to just respond with a meme next time you try to make any sort of argument.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
There is no real connection there. The closest you get are the anarcho-communists, and the only real overlap with anarcho-capitalists is that they both think their systems can work without government. That's about it. Anything else is just you twisting yourself around into pretzels.

I used to be a Libertarian, to the point that the only group I wanted to have anything beyond the most basic laws covering them was kids.

I walked away for a number of reasons, but one of the biggest was the simple fact that Libertarian groups don't work. Can't work, because the extreme indivdualism of those who have the mindset leads to impossible levels of factionalism.

One guy sees education as the one thing that's beyond the limits of Libertarian ideals, for how else will everybody have the chance to be their all? And, at what point do we consider kids as adults? The total Libertarian is not something humans can live with, and it became clear the backlash alone would be a massive problem.

I could get a number of people, but not even a third of the group, to agree that as long as we had welfare, we needed borders, and had to cut immigration as a result. But, even understanding the basic logic, most simply refused to say "Right now, we have to discriminate in favor of citizens. Until the rules change, we have to work with what's real."


There's more than one Libertarian Youtuber who refuses to accept any borders except individual property ones. A billion new people in the US? Sure, why not.


No group is perfect.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
And of course there's only one version of what's called "libertarian" - there's totally not an entire spectrum of entirely different groups that fall under that name or anything. :rolleyes:
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
Isn't that what I just said?

He's not making serious arguments, so he's not worth serious thought. But, yeah, your highlighting one of the issues I came to about Libertarian's, this blind support of the private at the expense of the public. Everyone in the USs private property rests on, well, the benign US government not actively trying to steal all of it. Pushing for open boarders in general, and with a welfare state in particular, is just asking for someone else to come seize the state, the collective property of the citizens, and with the welfare state probably quickly steal a great mass of one's private wealth as well to fund the enlarged welfare state.

And then with the education guy your seeing the issue of smuggled communist morality. Or at least, an impulse to desire equality of opportunity, which is not that many steps away from equality of outcome. At the very least, its a somewhat leftist morality for lack of a better word, which often times is very hard to justify in Libertarian terms. He seems at least aware that Education in his system is the exception to Libertarian views. The example I like to bring up is Civil Rights: the government mandating that stores can't be racist isn't really justifyable under libertarian ideology. Certainly its violating the NAP. However, its offensive to their morality, and they generally in the end seem to end on it should be illegal, either coming up with an elaborate excuse, or admitting it was an exemption.

Thus, the need for a more positive, prescriptive belief. Otherwise, the tendacy often is to simply have an unexamined leftist worldview, since that is the default society pushes educated people to if they don't consciously try to move against it.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
The example I like to bring up is Civil Rights: the government mandating that stores can't be racist isn't really justifyable under libertarian ideology. Certainly its violating the NAP. However, its offensive to their morality, and they generally in the end seem to end on it should be illegal, either coming up with an elaborate excuse, or admitting it was an exemption.

Thus, the need for a more positive, prescriptive belief. Otherwise, the tendacy often is to simply have an unexamined leftist worldview, since that is the default society pushes educated people to if they don't consciously try to move against it.

Yup.

Once I started thinking it through, I realised that, while I could agree with many Libertarian ideals, almost all in fact, the places where I disagreed were all different than everybody else. And, the moment I started thinking in terms of "A person who's more of a natural follower than me, how are they going to take it?" and "That moron I met a while ago, what would he do?", I realised that Libertarianism is much like all utopian ideals. Lovely to look at, but impossible to live with.



That moment you realise that allowing Racism is the Libertarian thing to do, that's a trip, make no mistake.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Isn't that what I just said?
If you did, I sure didn't see it. I saw you saying you were an extremist, and kind of implying that most libertarians were like you. Did I miss something or misunderstand you? Sure seemed like that was what you were trying to say to me.

Truth is, libertarians are a wildly diverse group, mostly because a ridiculous amount of differing ideologies fit under the description somehow. There is a party that claims to represent us, but it really isn't any different than the two big ones trying to represent (or at least claiming to) a lot of different groups that often have conflicting goals. Which makes it all the more absurd to try to compare them to communists or claim they somehow will pave the way for communists. Some of them might, but most of them would pick up a rifle and chant, "better dead than red." At their core, libertarians are individualists, so it is beyond absurd to suggest they are comparable to collectivists. Which is rich anyway coming from people who are themselves trying to sell a different form of collectivism.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
If you did, I sure didn't see it. I saw you saying you were an extremist, and kind of implying that most libertarians were like you. Did I miss something or misunderstand you? Sure seemed like that was what you were trying to say to me.

Truth is, libertarians are a wildly diverse group, mostly because a ridiculous amount of differing ideologies fit under the description somehow. There is a party that claims to represent us, but it really isn't any different than the two big ones trying to represent (or at least claiming to) a lot of different groups that often have conflicting goals. Which makes it all the more absurd to try to compare them to communists or claim they somehow will pave the way for communists. Some of them might, but most of them would pick up a rifle and chant, "better dead than red." At their core, libertarians are individualists, so it is beyond absurd to suggest they are comparable to collectivists. Which is rich anyway coming from people who are themselves trying to sell a different form of collectivism.


So, I'll quote myself.


I walked away for a number of reasons, but one of the biggest was the simple fact that Libertarian groups don't work. Can't work, because the extreme indivdualism of those who have the mindset leads to impossible levels of factionalism.

One guy sees education as the one thing that's beyond the limits of Libertarian ideals, for how else will everybody have the chance to be their all? And, at what point do we consider kids as adults? The total Libertarian is not something humans can live with, and it became clear the backlash alone would be a massive problem.

I could get a number of people, but not even a third of the group, to agree that as long as we had welfare, we needed borders, and had to cut immigration as a result. But, even understanding the basic logic, most simply refused to say "Right now, we have to discriminate in favor of citizens. Until the rules change, we have to work with what's real."



Pretty much, the point that @JagerIV was making is that Libertarians can, and sometimes do, attack something that they see as wrong. And, to be fair, they're often right. It's just that sometimes when you break a small evil, you leave space for a much bigger one.



Oh, and as for Party, I'm an Australian. We have the Liberal Democrats, they're the Libertarian party of Australia. And, to be fair, the majority are Libertarian, enough that I'll say they mean it. And, it's a constant effort to keep the power hungry wannabees out of positions of authority. Much like pedophiles and schools, they go where the prey is.




So, I repeat. No group is perfect.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder


So yeah, BlackRock is also involved in anti-2A stuff, and wants to use it's power to cause vote shifts.

How much people want to bet BlackRock will not allow their renters to have firearms in their houses, and may try influence gun laws via trying to mess with election campaigns.
 
Last edited:

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder


So yeah, BlackRock is also involved in anti-2A stuff, and wants to use it's power to cause vote shifts.

How much people want to bet BlackRock will not allow their renters to have firearms in their houses, and may try influence gun laws via trying to mess with election campaigns.


I wouldn't doubt it. Such people want the ability to tyrannize others as much as they please. Also the rapine greed of the elite seems to have no end, or rather the oligarchs. There is a reason why I have become skeptical of any economic system that centralizes power as of late (or any political or any other system of that sort for that matter).

We really need a revitalization of the middle class and of other such elements that...balance society. And of course I think we need a return of the classical aristocrat- that is not the hereditary type (though it often is semi-hereditary, because wealth and good nature tend to be passed down) but rather the best men.
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
And of course I think we need a return of the classical aristocrat- that is not the hereditary type (though it often is semi-hereditary, because wealth and good nature tend to be passed down) but rather the best men.
What's the point of overthrowing a bunch of wannabe feudal tyrants, only to replace them with the original version? Noblesse oblige is as much unrealistic propaganda as Schwab's insistence that 'you will be happy' to be his company town's serf.
Captain Gonzalo de Aguilera y Munro said:
You know what's wrong with Spain? Modern plumbing! In healthier times — spiritually healthier, you understand — plague and pestilence could be counted on to thin the Spanish masses ... now, with modern sewage disposal, they simply multiply too fast. The masses are no better than animals, you understand, and you can't expect them not to become infected with the virus of Bolshevism. After all, rats and lice carry the plague.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
What's the point of overthrowing a bunch of wannabe feudal tyrants, only to replace them with the original version? Noblesse oblige is as much unrealistic propaganda as Schwab's insistence that 'you will be happy' to be his company town's serf.

I am talking about classical philosophy, as in literally rule by the best. I have already explained this, just because there has been semantic drift doesn't stop the old meaning from still applying.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
Unfortunately, "rule by the best", almost always ended up "rule by the best shysters and tyrants" in practice.

Actually it tends to degrade into oligarchy at worst, or transition into polity at the best. Ending up that way is the fate of oligarchies.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
So uh.
Watch this video, and it will explain the situation with Blackrock

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top