Is this nuance explainable or something you can't put into words? If the former, please, humor us with your explanation of how we're missing the nuance in this quote:

What, in your opinion, are the positions of voluntarism which are most inconsistent with ACism?

I told you already that I'm not aware of what other people's defense on Ron Paul is and I don't want to take responsibility for it. To your question whether we should listen to his words or look at his voting record - the answer is simple. Neither, but rather a combination of many things, because the world isn't that simplistic. I already explained that I don't think it's at all likely he is a racist, but I base this not only on his voting record but on the fact that he has never said anything racist in his entire life and racism simply doesn't fit him at all. Similarly, many of the things he has said, as well as his voting record, are perfectly consistent with voluntarism. He has also identified himself as a voluntarist.

Usually when you're wondering whether to look at the voting record or at the words of a person in order to figure out what their positions on certain issues are, it's good to remember to actually use your brain and do some reasoning, taking into account all the complexities of the world.

I am aware of that quote. That's why I said you're not really understanding the nuance in what he's saying. Basically there are two questions that can be asked here:

1. Is person A free to allow person B to take care of his child?
2. Is person B free to give person A however much money he wants, even for no reason?

Rothbard is simply saying that the answer to both questions is "yes" and the rest follows naturally. He's not saying that we should create a profitable child market in which poor people give birth to dozens of children so they can sell them to old perves.

I still don't get your point. What difference does it make if I post the exact same video from Youtube.com or from CNN.com? Obviously anybody is free to not take seriously whatever. They can decide to take Pat Robertson more seriously than Roger Penrose on a physical question. Whether that's an intelligent thing to do is what we're discussing here.

Wat. That is exactly what he is saying.

That's some magical thinking to interpret that quote any other way.

CLOSER THOUGHT, suzzer! SUPERIOR HUMANISM! Can't you read the nuance? It follows naturally.

He actually does, almost certainly. Of course his objective isn't to have an actual dialog about anything, it's to make a lot of loud noises and make everyone else look as bad as possible. It's also a lot easier to just LOL PEDOS BUYING YOUR KIDS.

Look I get Rothbard's point that we already have a market in children - it just has the price fixed at zero and the govt is involved. And since those two things are inherently bad, it must follow that a free market in children is a better solution.

I follow the logic. I just vehemently disagree with premise, like most sane people.

Also what happened to the la6ki from just a few short posts ago who astonishingly complained: That's some powerful nuance to flip that position so fast.

What naturally follows saying yes to those questions is a profitable child market.

Clearly that makes no difference, and you're being disingenuous with this example. People link to youtube all the time to show clips from news broadcasts, documentaries, etc, and nobody responds with 'LOL youtube'. It's when a video has been made exclusively for broadcast on youtube and similar sites that the alarm bells ring. Like I said, if it's a worthwhile idea then it's hard to imagine a case where you couldn't find some source other than a homemade youtube video.

I find it hard to believe you actually don't get this, to be honest.

The Jude Law character in the movie Contagion does a lot of damage by spreading disinformation over Youtube. He even sells out to a hedge fund by backing some BS herbal cure. But in the end the govt has to let him go because of "free speech" . Yeah right like they would let that happen in a natural emergency. Other than that though I thought the movie was pretty realistic and very spooky.

I thought they got him for something in the end.

ur X axis is rather dishonest IMO

Cliff notes:
Ditch the puritanical baggage on the right.
Ditch the conspiracy theorists.
Claim victory for the existing social liberties that are winning nationwide.

I agree with all of this. Small 'L' libertarians have been gaining mindshare lately but the big 'L' Libertarian Party is too tied in with the right wing. Nevermind the fact that Gary Johnson probably has more in common with Jill Stein than RMoney, perception is everything. And in this world of 2 dimensional left/right political affiliation 'Libertarian' is viewed on more right wing extreme than the science deniers.

Rebranding of the 'libertarian' philosophy to be outside of that straight line, and taking credit for the winning issues (gay marriage, legal weed, personal freedom) instead of the losers (taxes are evil, screw the environment, gold standard, state succession) would be a huge step. Pragmatic libertarianism FTW.

Also - INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING is absolutely key. This country will always trend towards consolodation of power into two parties until we change the way we vote. Get grassroots on this, get it done in your town.

Yes, and I guess his objective also includes instructing mods to give me infractions for personally attacking him ITT (lol?)

Nothing happened to la6ki from a few posts ago. The way Fly was mispresenting Rothbard's position made it sound exactly like parents selling their children to pedophiles for profit, which is obviously not okay in any way in a libertarian society (as raping children is unacceptable under any circumstances).

The important distinction to be made here is between Youtube videos which compile content (kind of like Wikipedia) and Youtube videos which generate content (kind of like the original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia). I might understand somebody who says "I only trust highly respectable sources. A random Youtuber doesn't really interest me" (even though there is quite good content generated on Youtube as well and throwing that along with the crappy content is pretty silly IMO). But the video I posted which some said shouldn't be taken seriously because it was a Youtube video didn't have original content, but compiled content consisting of quotes from past Ron Paul publications and video excerpts featuring Ron Paul. Admittedly, the way the content was presented was a product of a random Youtuber, but I think any intelligent person should be able to differentiate the content of a video from its presentation, since the former is why I posted it in the first place.

There's no nuance to what he's saying. I don't think you know what "nuance" means. I think if you were the sort of person who knew what words like "nuance" meant, you would be able to see through Rothbard's bull****. But alas, here we are.

Nobody said anything about dozens of children or selling them to pervs. Just the general principles of buying and selling children.

I mean, practically, sure, why not? That person isn't doing anything wrong under voluntarism, so anyone who interfered in their child molestation victim breeding operation would be violating the NAP.

But let's review, because this isn't about Rothbard's nonsense invented dystopian hellscape of voluntarism, it's about YOU.

You deigned to lecture us:

I, familar with the thing where ACists deny that their principles allow a bad outcome right until they remember that their principles DO allow that outcome and so it's obviously not a bad outcome anymore, asked to clarify:

So we're agreed. No buying or selling of children in voluntarism, a free market in children is a bad thing.

Ooops! Turns out you obviously can buy and sell children and a flourishing free market in children follows naturally. Boy were you confused.

Fly just a quick point before you digress back to shreeking again.

You do realize that we have a strong market in children right now and they cost allot of money right? You also realize that that market is facilitated by the government right?

Except it is okay in an ACist society (let's cut the libertarian bs, we're in full blown ACism land when we're talking about Rothbard). If a child doesn't like being owned, or doesn't like the conditions of that ownership (ie food and shelter in exchange for services), then that child is free to leave.

So long as the child can voluntarily leave the relationship, you have no right to interfere in that relationship. It doesn't matter that you don't like it, I'll say once again, FU and your morals. It isn't for you to determine what kind of voluntary relationship is or is not acceptable in an ACist society.

Or you could present the quotes themselves instead of presenting them in the form of what's effectively a slideshow. Just think of yourself as a salesman of your product (your ideas) and of youtube as a form of packaging which research has shown consumers respond to badly. Like I said, formally, you're right, people should disregard the medium. But they don't, for very respectable practical reasons. Adjust to the market or don't, it's up to you. But you won't change the market by complaining about it.

I'm pretty sure I know what nuance means. I guess it should be your problem if you don't understand what it means in this context.

NAP isn't violated if violence is used against somebody who is already violating NAP. And a child molester (or a person who gives children in the hands of a child molester) is certainly violating NAP!

==================

And by the way, be a man and talk to me personally next time you feel like your feelings have been incredibly hurt. But I guess your statism is spilled everywhere (if I don't like what somebody is saying, I'll just use power to silence him).

Strongly disagree with the idea that people should disregard the medium. We only get so many minutes on this earth. I'm not wasting them watching some 45-minute youtube video of a deranged guy sitting behind a desk with a few charts superimposed. Nor am I going to spend hours researching to debunk the guy's points when the intended target will just disregard my points anyway.

Filtering based on something appearing in legitimate media is perfectly legitimate pragmatic compromise between being open-minded and wasting all your time chasing Bigfoots.

Even if the child consents?

Oh man. Fly gonna pick some low hanging fruit itt.

No no no. We can delve into how nonsensical your views on child molestation are at some other time. We had a great thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...labor-1117420/
a little while back. Ooooh we all had some chuckles pointing and laughing as voluntarists dug deeper and deeper holes trying desperately to pretend their philosophy granted them the moral high ground.

This is just about the general principles. How did we go from:

to
Did you not know about those answers? Did you learn that it follows naturally in the course of this thread?

What the **** are you talking about? My feelings? How am I silencing you?

Lol no. Fractional reserve lending in its current form (massive loan to capital and deposit ratio) can only exist over the long run with a lender of last resort...wait for it...the Federal Reserve. Remember periodic bank runs through history? They are obviously a result of loans exceeding the bank's capital and deposits and/or duration mismatch (e.g. originating a 30 year mortgage with demand deposits like checking accounts). I'll even concede that fractional-reserve lending *could* exist in the free market, but it would be a greatly watered down version of what we see today...i.e. significantly less to negligible amounts of leverage...not the 30, 50, or even 100x leverage levels common pre-2008. It should be obvious (even to you) why banks love fractional-reserve lending and leverage: It's insanely profitable. That is, until it blows up and we taxpayers are left holding the bag.

You know Fly, I typed that post for DrModern because he, unlike you, doesn't depend on cleverly recycling the years worth of the same ad hominems and, above all, is actually capable of responding in good faith. You remind me of old Marxist types who come unhinged when someone asks them who, in a socialist utopia, would volunteer to take out the trash and clean the sewers.

Me: Large current/capital account imbalances from printing the world's reserve currency, while the middle class has been hollowed out?

You: Murray Rothbard is a mentally ill racist!

Me: $100 Trillion in derivatives disconnected from the real economy?

You: (mumbles something) Hans Hermann Hoppe!

Me: Middle class savers are getting killed by ZIRP while the 1% can lever up, speculate, and make huge money on risk assets.

You: Civil War!

I know we went through something like this back when you deemed that someone questioning the wisdom and sustainability of six-figure public sector pensions was tantamount to an asperger's diagnosis. If and when you have the time or inclination to actually give a good faith response to the Austrian position on fractional-reserve lending, then I'll be glad to listen.

Yeah, these are the practical reasons I mentioned. But formally it's possible that this century's Wittgenstein or whatever is alive and well and ranting on youtube. It's obviously so colossally unlikely that it's fine to filter by medium, I don't think we actually disagree here.

Anyway, the point of this thread is that libertarians need to reject the la6kis and NeBlisses and TomCollinsses of the world. They bring along a lot of baggage, don't really care about getting anything accomplished from a policy perspective, and do not present the image necessary.

If you personally care about liberty, I'd recommend getting involved in single issue movements like NORML or marriage equality or gun control or whatever rather than trying to graft yourself onto an existing political party as a fringe movement of kooks and weirdos.