What is the deal with authoritarians and learned helplessness?

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I'm spotting a very common thread in reading and listening to what authoritarians and statists have to say.
Pretty much all of it is whining about perceived problems. Nothing, or close to nothing, of what they say is anywhere near a solution or an approach to fix problems.

Like, you present those people with solutions, all they do is give assertions on why they don't work. Not even arguments, there is no logic or evidence behind them, just assertions and conjecture.

To me it feels like these people are conditioned to think like children, who wish for big daddy state to take care of all of their problems. If there is a problem, it means the state needs to do more. Even if the problem is caused by the state in the first place.
The government creates the legal fiction of a "corporation". The result is that corporations have too much political power. The people whine. So the government intervenes more, with new regulations. So there is less competition and corporations have more power and life is shittier for everyone. The people whine. So the government intervenes more.

The final destination of this line of thinking is totalitarian communism.
And I am honestly surprised to see so much of this line of thinking here on the Farms.
I understand a 6-year-old believing in daddy to step in and fix all of their problems, but I thought that you need to be an adult to use the Farms.

 

[Quindoll]

People do tend to like solutions or suggestions, at least when it's in their sphere of influence. Maybe they don't particularly like your solutions and suggestions?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

People do tend to like solutions or suggestions, at least when it's in their sphere of influence. Maybe they don't particularly like your solutions and suggestions?

That's the thing, they lack any logical reasoning.
All I'm hearing is canned responses, featuring non-arguments that have been logically and empirically disproven more times than I can count.
And the moment you start getting into logical reasoning, all they do is rate you dumb and accuse you of autistic sperging, or retort with the non-argument that you need to be some high-iq autist to understand it.

It's nothing but excuses for why you should not be engaging your own brain. It's like these people are allergic to things that don't fit in their world view.
I understand being physically repulsed by a nasty stench, but these people are physically repulsed by solutions and suggestions.

 

[Gremperor]

And I am honestly surprised to see so much of this line of thinking here on the Farms.
I understand a 6-year-old believing in daddy to step in and fix all of their problems, but I thought that you need to be an adult to use the Farms.

Can you provide some examples? You're being very vague and unspecific with your complaints.

 

[I'm Retarded?]

I thought that you need to be an adult to use the Farms.

you sound like a reddit-tier debatefag. maybe you should try being less autistic.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Can you provide some examples? You're being very vague and unspecific with your complaints.

One example is a discussion on scalping, unfortunately the thread has been removed, but a similar discussion was happening elsewhere in the Farms.

I have shown logically that scalpers do nothing that is ethically wrong. I have shown that, for scalping to be possible, a certain set of conditions needs to exist. Essentially, scalpers provide a service and solution to the problem of rationing scarce and highly demanded goods.
The comments were full of accusations of retardation, calls to kill and behead scalpers, calls to make scalping illegal, nonsensical assertions that scalpers somehow "create artificial scarcity".
There was not one single person who even made an attempt to show that the logic is wrong, or that the premises are wrong. There were only calls to ban things they don't like.

 

[Spud]

I have shown logically that scalpers do nothing that is ethically wrong.

Sure, they're still scum though. Even if all they're doing is buying something, selling it at a higher price and ensuring that they're the only person who holds the item so they get to dictate the price. People in high trust societies don't like scummy behaviour like scalping as it's low trust in nature and all scalper arguments boils down to "if I don't do it someone else will" and lack the will to be honest about it being their reasoning angers people.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Aren't you a lolbertarian? I don't think you have room to talk about logic.

 

[WielkiWapiesz2137]

Without scalpers, you would get a shortage which is worse than price increase. The only thing that scalpers do is keeping the price at market level which is the result of outside forces. However, since it is easier to blame them for the price increase instead of underlying causes all the anger is focused on them.

 

[Hoverdrive]

Evolutionary success of humans is entirely attributable to our ability to communicate and cooperate with each other.
Cooperation gives results, so people naturally gravitate towards it and form governments.
When a problem presents itself, it's very natural for a person to say "let the government deal with this, I have enough on my plate". After all, that's why the government exists - to solve problems and ensure the welfare of its citizens (at least that's what the ideal government is supposed to do).
Very little is accomplished on individual basis, even geniuses need grunt workers to actually build their inventions on a significant scale.
In the example you've raised (scalpers) a correct response would be to regulate the supply so that it meets demand, eliminating the root of the issue. A government can do so, but a single person cannot.
This isn't an attempt to shut you up, I like the topic you've raised, just trying to present an alternative view.

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

I have shown logically that scalpers do nothing that is ethically wrong

I agree, we need to legalize the lost art of headhunting and collecting scalps

 

[Mound Dweller]

Scalpers are economic niggers, "oh but how does this effect you PERSONALLY" tier shit I care not for, right is might if you want to reduce it to base morality and my base morality says fuck 'em.
The only thing that prevents niggery is violence or the threat of/the implication it, the vast majority of "people" are potential niggers, lolberts do not understand this.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Sure, they're still scum though. Even if all they're doing is buying something, selling it at a higher price and ensuring that they're the only person who holds the item so they get to dictate the price. People in high trust societies don't like scummy behaviour like scalping as it's low trust in nature and all scalper arguments boils down to "if I don't do it someone else will" and lack the will to be honest about it being their reasoning angers people.

Without scalpers, you would get a shortage which is worse than price increase. The only thing that scalpers do is keeping the price at market level which is the result of outside forces. However, since it is easier to blame them for the price increase instead of underlying causes all the anger is focused on them.

Scalpers are economic niggers, "oh but how does this effect you PERSONALLY" tier shit I care not for, right is might if you want to reduce it to base morality and my base morality says fuck 'em.

I'll briefly go over the logic for you.
For scalping to exist, there must be three conditions.
Condition 1: The item is in limited supply.
Let's take front row tickets at a concert as an example. There are only so many tickets in the front row. You can't just produce more seats in the front row. If you could, then scalping is not possible.
Condition 2: The item must have a listed price.
Look at stocks. Stocks have no "ticket price" or "MSRP". If I buy a stock, hold it, and resell it later for a huge monetary profit, nobody in their right mind would accuse me of having committed scalping.
Condition 3: The list price must be lower than the market-clearing price.
The market-clearing price is the price at which everybody who wants to sell finds a willing buyer, and everybody who wants to buy finds a willing seller. Imagine a graphics card costs $10 million. At this price, people would quit their day job just to learn how to produce graphics cards, but hardly anybody would be willing to buy them. Now imagine a graphics card costs $10. At this price, people would buy graphics cards as paperweights, but nobody would want to sell them. If graphics cards were put on sale for $10k, for instance, which is higher than the market-clearing price, then scalping would not be possible either.

Now that these conditions exist, how does rationing exist? Because the problem is getting a limited stock to the end user. Without the third condition (a too low listed price), it would be simple, just let people negotiate and have the price be determined by supply and demand. Supply and demand (the price mechanism), if unmolested, ensure that items end up being owned by the most willing owners.
This is also easy to explain. Imagine a society in which there are people who have cars and there are people who have money. Let's say the market clearing price of used cars is $10k to make this example easier. In other words, every car owner who would not be willing to sell their car for $10k (because that's too low for them) remains with his car. And every cash holder who would not be willing to buy a car for $10k (because that's too high for them) remains with his cash. And for everyone else, they end up with what they desire the most, they become the most willing owners.

So how do you ration? Either you use monetary methods or non-monetary methods. Such as first come first serve. Or nepotism. Or bribery. Or discrimination. But monetary methods allow a level playing field.

Cooperation gives results, so people naturally gravitate towards it and form governments.

This here is plainly wrong. Governments are not cooperative institutions. Unless being threatened at gunpoint counts as cooperation to you.
Government is the specific agency in a society that obtains its income not by voluntarily paying customers, but through extortion and expropriation.
Do note that I do not object to governance. But everything "good" the government does is better done by private entities who depend on the goodwill of voluntary customers.

the vast majority of "people" are potential niggers

This here, if true, is the core of my issue.
However, I firmly believe that the vast majority of people have been "turned into niggers" by the state and state conditioning.

 

[Mound Dweller]

So how do you ration? Either you use monetary methods or non-monetary methods. Such as first come first serve. Or nepotism. Or bribery. Or discrimination. But monetary methods allow a level playing field.

Bruh you are talking about being a nigger like it's somehow acceptable to niggerishly nigger over your fellow human beings because "money" makes it okay to do so.
This is all fine and logical if you are a nigger who worships Moloch but please understand for those of who do not you are just being a nigger.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Bruh you are talking about being a nigger like it's somehow acceptable to niggerishly nigger over your fellow human beings because "money" makes it okay to do so.
This is all fine and logical if you are a nigger who worships Moloch but please understand for those of who do not you are just being a nigger.

Look, there is something you want from someone else.
How do you go about getting that someone else to give it to you?
You can beg them to give it to you.
You can offer to pay them.
You can threaten them and take it by force.
Two of those are nigger behavior.

 

[Mound Dweller]

Look, there is something you want from someone else.
How do you go about getting that someone else to give it to you?
You can beg them to give it to you.
You can offer to pay them.
You can threaten them and take it by force.
Two of those are nigger behavior.

You are leaving out trade, barter is not inherently monetary in nature and often isn't.
You also neglect to mention an exchange of obligation, the foundation of what feudalism was.
Niggers are not incapable of these things but often choose not to engage in them unless compelled to do so, this is what the implication of the violence is for and why the power is important for existing. You cannot achieve this at state-level without state force.

 

[glue eater]

To Zoomers Hitler and Stalin are way cooler than lolberts wanting "married gay couples to protect their weed plants with AR15" or however they put it.

 

[David Brown]

Libertarian faces challenge to his soulless autistic worldview, makes new thread to reassert his myopic and sterile viewpoint...

Here's a hint: logic is a great tool for problem solving but it can be applied and manipulated to advocate any values. People are pissed at you, OP, because you are autistically defendjng behavior that makes it harder for ordinary people to get their hands on goods and services not because scalpers are more efficient distributors, but because they are willing and able to obtain resources in a way ordinary polite folk aren't willing to do. Maybe in your mind it is more efficient in the free market for scalping to exist, but its only more efficient at rewarding more resources to a middle man who had nothing to do with either the production or the consumption of the resources. Essentially a taxation.

Might as well defend cutting people off on the freeway. Sure, it might be more efficient for you to get from point A to point B, but surely you can see why you would be mocked for defending it.

One last thing. If an uncoerced free market with no state intervention is better, why doesn't it exist anywhere on earth? There has never ever been a society without violent force being used somewhere in the distribution of wealth. Societies tend to develop into having some amount of freedom and some amount of coercion. The universe is one big free market, and it would appear that most people have a preference for some amount of a state. Looks like the free market was actually defeated in the free market.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

One last thing. If an uncoerced free market with no state intervention is better, why doesn't it exist anywhere on earth?

It exists in the overwhelming majority of situations in the overwhelming majority of locations.
When you are eating dinner at home with your family, all of you are respecting each other's rights.
The state itself is so absolutely toxic and corrupting that every second it exists makes everything worse. Just one letter in the mail, just one deduction on your paycheck.

 

[Mound Dweller]

all of you are respecting each other's rights.

This is something else loberts have a fixation with, the myth of "rights" as if they somehow exist and are real and are not just a synonym for privileges that have been granted by (higher) power that by having possession of you are implicitly submitting to the will of.
There is a cognitive dissonance in that this "power" for lolberts exists in a state of interregnum in that instead of human will they substitute shit like "market forces" or "natural" law or some other such nonsense euphemism for the implication of violence.