My Actual Libertarian Experience

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

I'm at the debate about meat eating that I said I wouldn't go to. I am ready to strangle someone.

Doing that would violate the NAP.

[Red]

Nina is a hypocrite, I'll tell you all about it... Wednesday.

[NonZeroSum]

@Lay Vegan I is DemSoc leaning towards AnCom, hear me roar. So networked councils of communes would by consensus agree to carbon tax themselves to fund renewable energy. While left-market anarchists would vote against their community banks loaning to fossil fuel companies and instead for renewable energy and public transport companies. Also boycott utility monopolies in hopes they break themselves up and diversify into renewable energy.

Anarcho-Communist: A Radical Approach to the Climate Crisis
Left-Market Anarchist: A Libertarian Take on the Green New Deal

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Nina is a hypocrite, I'll tell you all about it... Wednesday.

[Lay Vegan]

@NonZeroSum

Thanks.

It seems that "left-market anarchism" is distinct from anarcho-capitalism in that LMA’s would reject implementing unfettered free markets, correct? Since capitalism is ultimately about the distribution of goods and services through the markets to generate profit, inequality seems inevitable insofar as the rich can allocate their capital into new investment, which furthers accumulation. I.e., anarcho-capitalism leads to an "stateless capitalism” whereas left-market anarchism leads to “stateless socialism."

Is this a correct analysis? If so, then most of my criticism of libertarianism seems to apply more to the anarcho-capitalists than to your camp. (although I still reject left libertarianism due to a lack of evidence of its efficacy).

Furthermore, would you say that your support of anarchy is predicated on property rights? Or mainly social equality? In my experience, most libertarians seems to fall into one of 2 camps: one predicated heavily on rights, and the other equality.

[Red]

@Lay Vegan Did you listen to the debate yet? The comments on the video are making me lose faith in humanity.

[NonZeroSum]

It seems that "left-market anarchism" is distinct from anarcho-capitalism in that LMA’s would reject implementing unfettered free markets, correct? Since capitalism is ultimately about the distribution of goods and services through the markets to generate profit, inequality seems inevitable insofar as the rich can allocate their capital into new investment, which furthers accumulation. I.e., anarcho-capitalism leads to an "stateless capitalism” whereas left-market anarchism leads to “stateless socialism."

Yep that sounds right.

Furthermore, would you say that your support of anarchy is predicated on property rights? Or mainly social equality? In my experience, most libertarians seems to fall into one of 2 camps: one predicated heavily on rights, and the other equality.

Yep, definitely social equality and I'd also say diversity, like there isn't a one size fits all way of satisfying everyone's needs. And agree about the other side fixating on property rights, but it's a strange sort of right to horde and stratify which is anti-thetical to needs. Though one that seems to comfort them because it is one size fits all aha.

This is the best way I've heard the political compass be described, by the YouTuber Pamphleteer - https://youtu.be/EKfvepim7rE?t=8m8s

And I'll give you the shorthand of what I got from it:

Less Rights, Less Liberties - Fascism: An ideological focus on the traditional power imbalance in society being what's right and just, not based on individual rights or liberties, highly stratified classes, at the top royalty or technocracy, underneath that a warrior class, underneath that a working class.

Less Rights, More Liberties - Communism: An ideological focus on providing all the necessities of the individual but less rights to opt out, so lots of civil infrastructure projects, but no right to work on other things.

More Rights, Less Liberties - Anarcho-Capitalism: An ideological focus on having the most rights in society to be able to achieve what you want, but very few ever getting chance to rise to having the liberty to do it. They like to think of this as creative chaos or the fairness of your arithmetic winning out, what they call an invisible hand guiding the free market.

More Rights, More Liberties - Anarcho-Communism: An ideological focus on equality and diversity. This is the same ideal communists say they want, but there was a schism way back before WW1 where some were willing to attempt to get there by seizing state power and becoming more authoritarian during a transition period. So any democratic socialists today who are serious about working towards the better ideal society with more autonomy have to add the qualifier Anarcho-Communism, and use examples in history like revolutionary Catalonia fighting Franco in the run up to WW2 and in the French resistance or the modern day Kurdish lead revolution in Syria fighting ISIS.

[Red]

Okay, to anyone interested, I was reinvited to go back to the Soho Forum to watch another debate. I know I said it before, but the resolution was:

There is little or no rigorous evidence that vegetarian/vegan diets are healthier than diets that include meat, eggs, and dairy.

It was between Dr. David Katz for the negative and dietary journalist quack Nina Teicholz for the affirmative. I don't remember all of the points of the debate, but when it's uploaded to the interwebz, we can have some fun debunking Nina's BS (Katz wasn't able to refute all of her points, given the format of the debate). It might be a while though, so sit tight. I estimate it'll be out by early June the latest.

David had some points I disagreed with, and he made a few mistakes, but overall I think he did a pretty solid job (though in a situation like this, similar to the climate change one, no matter how much evidence you show, you will not convince some people. Reminds me of someone...).

From what I do remember, she didn't know what an ad hominem was (Dr. Katz wrote articles about her claims, and called her out for spreading misinformation, and you can conclude how that turned out), used anecdotal evidence (saying how when you cut out meat, you start eating more grains, like she did when she stopped eating meat), and other nonsense claims.

I think the most egregious thing she did was point out how a lot of studies on the health benefits of meatless diets are correlation not causation. What makes it so egregious is that, like 15 minutes later, stated how as meat consumption has gone down and fruit consumption has gone up, obesity and heart disease and the like have gone up, and in my head, I was like "You fucking hypocrite." She's blatantly making the same fallacy she was criticizing before, and I suspect that she is aware of this, and she's hoping no one will notice. Bitch.

Can't wait for this thing to be uploaded so we can dig into it. I can use help on the nutrition front.

[Lay Vegan]

@Lay Vegan Did you listen to the debate yet? The comments on the video are making me lose faith in humanity.

It was pure cancer

I expected Idso to use the classic “well, this study revealed C02 levels rose 200 to 1000 years after the rise in global temperature, so C02 must not be correlated with global climate today.”

Which is stupid, because the initial factors that contributed to climate change during that period is explained through changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affected the amount of UV hitting the atmosphere. As ocean temperatures rose, they released more C02, which in turn amplified the warming affect.



http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre ... -nat12.pdf

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Idso is not wrong that warming can sometimes precede rises in C02 levels, but he’s wrong in that there is no empirical evidence that C02 levels have no affect on global temperature (C02 only amplifies rises in temperature).

I nearly spit out my toast when he began citing a handful of studies revealing C02 will only ”benefit” terrestrial plants. C02 is plant food y’all! Which fails to consider that many ecosystems do not exist in carefully controlled labs, where scientists can flip the switch and add just the right amount of C02 to increase photosynthesis. In the real world, the overabundance of one element (C02) in the atmosphere can limit the accessibility of others,(like nitrogen). They’d also probably need more resources to compensate for the rapid growth, exacerbating the water crisis.

Idso's entire spiel was both aggravating and entertaining. I couldn't get through the entire podcast

Bennett did OK, and I liked that he mentioned polar vortex as a consequences of climate change. He sounded a bit like my middle school Earth Science teacher, explaining basic chemistry, weather, and scientific consensus.

[Red]

Bennett did OK, and I liked that he mentioned polar vortex as a consequence of climate change.

I think he did pretty well for the most part. His weaker parts were when he was responding to questions and such, and made appeals to authority (not that he was wrong; to a rational, scientifically literate person, it can be a very compelling case to make in regards to a hard science like this), but people are morons, especially in a place like this. Not only is ideology going to get in the way, but they're libertarians.

He sounded a bit like my middle school Earth Science teacher, explaining basic chemistry, weather, and scientific consensus.

Again, libertarians. I would have kicked some of them in the eye when they laughed at Bennett, but as @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said, MUH NUN AGRUSHUN PRENSIPL!