What is the deal with authoritarians and learned helplessness?

[WelperHelper99]

In your absolutely ridiculous hypothetical, yes.
Tough luck.

Your hypothetical is better suited as an argument against apocalyptic hypotheticals than anything, really.
Every system in the world can be put into a hypothetical in which the only reasonable answer is "tough luck".

At that point, the thirsty person pulls a glock out. He isn't asking anymore. He takes the water, the water merchants money, and rapes him in the ass for good measure for being a fucking prick instead of helping a nigga out

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

In your absolutely ridiculous hypothetical, yes.

taking by force someone's overpriced excess water > cursing God and dying of thirst

change my mind

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

taking by force someone's overpriced excess water > cursing God and dying of thirst

change my mind

Well, feel free to do it, but don't try to dodge the consequences.
Free will, heavy burden.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Well, feel free to do it, but don't try to dodge the consequences.
Free will, heavy burden.

What consequences? Dying of thirst is a heavier burden than unburdening the greedy water hoarder's excess.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What consequences? Dying of thirst is a heavier burden than unburdening the greedy water hoarder's excess.

Getting shot in self-defense, for instance.

The libertarian position is that rights are always valid at all times. There is no such thing as "oh no we declare a state of emergency your property rights are now invalid sorry"
There are so many things that can be done in your hypothetical. Taking a loan. Selling possessions to scrounge up the money.
Or simply driving away to another place to get water.
Or posting on social media that there is a water shortage and get people from outside to come to you with water.

If your first thought is to use violence to expropriate somebody who has done nothing wrong, then that says hell of a lot about you. I don't take kindly to your kind.

Other than that, your hypothetical is a lot like Vaush's coconut tree analogy.
Which, again, is not something to hypothesize a free market, but rather a hypothetical about the dangers of monopolies.
I recommend you watch this video:

Let me know if you disagree with anything in the video.

 

[Private Tag Reporter]

are you posting fumos as an argument

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

are you posting fumos as an argument

Your question is retarded, but for the sake of argument...
I am posting a video by someone who happens to like fumos.
If you like, just use yt-dlp to download the audio track, that way there are no fumos.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Getting shot in self-defense, for instance.

Risk/reward is baked into every single decision you make in your life, from getting out of bed, to crossing the street, to robbing water hoarders.

risking getting shot > withering in the hot sun without water

The libertarian position is that rights are always valid at all times.

The correct position is self-preservation of yourself, your family, and your friends. It's not even a question, the automatic response to them all dying in front of you should be shooting the water hoarder.

There is no such thing as "oh no we declare a state of emergency your property rights are now invalid sorry"

Sure there is, if you don't like the laws of a nation then go somewhere else or start your own country.

There are so many things that can be done in your hypothetical. Taking a loan. Selling possessions to scrounge up the money.
Or simply driving away to another place to get water.
Or posting on social media that there is a water shortage and get people from outside to come to you with water.

We're talking about immediate need during a disaster. Those aren't always going to be an option. If they are then sure, of course you try those options first. But when it comes down to it, I'm getting that fucking water, one way or another.

If your first thought is to use violence to expropriate somebody who has done nothing wrong, then that says hell of a lot about you. I don't take kindly to your kind.

Agreed for the former, and it's mutual regarding the latter.

Other than that, your hypothetical is a lot like Vaush's coconut tree analogy.
Which, again, is not something to hypothesize a free market, but rather a hypothetical about the dangers of monopolies.

I'm unfamiliar with his coconut tree analogy, please retell it if you can.

I recommend you watch this video:

Let me know if you disagree with anything in the video.

I'll check it out later.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I'm unfamiliar with his coconut tree analogy, please retell it if you can.

The coconut tree analogy is covered in the video.
The video answers pretty much every point you have made in this thread so far.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

The coconut tree analogy is covered in the video.
The video answers pretty much every point you have made in this thread so far.

Okay, then skip the coconut tree analogy, but please respond to the rest in your own words.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

risking getting shot > withering in the hot sun without water

That's a personal judgment, good for you.
You can't extrapolate anything usable from this though.

The correct position is self-preservation of yourself, your family, and your friends.

I agree. Which is why, if you get into such a situation, you done fucked up.

It's not even a question, the automatic response to them all dying in front of you should be shooting the water hoarder.

Again, that says a lot about you. Congratulations. You are now a nigger.

Sure there is, if you don't like the laws of a nation then go somewhere else or start your own country.

The hell kind of conclusion is this?
"laws of a nation" are contemporarily mere legislation, mere decree. Most, if not all libertarians, would argue that these are invalid per se.
Natural laws, that libertarians do agree on, are valid at every point and every time. They are not some convention with alternatives, like the Latin alphabet has an alternative in the Cyrillic alphabet.

But when it comes down to it, I'm getting that fucking water, one way or another.

Good for you, irrelevant to the system as a whole.

but please respond to the rest in your own words

done

 

[Private Tag Reporter]

what are your opinions on selling fumos? since it's not technologically possible to transfer direct control of the demons contained within a fumo.
Accordingly, any contract or agreement which stipulates such a thing is fraudulent.
This includes fumos as well. If you offer to sell someone fumos, you are attempting to defraud someone.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

That's a personal judgment, good for you.
You can't extrapolate anything usable from this though.

In the most technical sense, sure, but it's a personal judgement you yourself would make, as would 99% of people.

I agree. Which is why, if you get into such a situation, you done fucked up.

As repeatedly stated, sometimes shit happens. Not anybody's fault.

Again, that says a lot about you. Congratulations. You are now a nigger.

You wouldn't do it? Then you're worse than a nigger, a traitor abdicating his duty to his family. Actually sounds pretty niggerish.

The hell kind of conclusion is this?

A logical one. If I was born in Canada and didn't like their laws I'd move to America. If I didn't like American law either then I'd need to find one I did like or establish my own nation. The only other options are shut the fuck up and accept it or vote for a party of idiots like myself who have no chance of changing anything to how I want it to be.

"laws of a nation" are contemporarily mere legislation, mere decree. Most, if not all libertarians, would argue that these are invalid per se.

Who determines what decree is valid or invalid?

Natural laws, that libertarians do agree on, are valid at every point and every time. They are not some convention with alternatives, like the Latin alphabet has an alternative in the Cyrillic alphabet.

Natural law is might makes right. That's the only valid right in this world unless you're religious.

Good for you, irrelevant to the system as a whole.

Good for you too, because I know you'd get that water as well. And the system won't find it irrelevant because everyone would do the same thing, rendering the system impotent.

done

Thank you.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Natural law is might makes right. That's the only valid right in this world unless you're religious.

I'm pretty sure it was page 2 on this thread where I have given a crash course in objective universal natural law, debunking legal polylogism (incl. might makes right)
If need be, this should be a really in-depth resource:

https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/

Or this video if you want something brief

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I'm pretty sure it was page 2 on this thread where I have given a crash course in objective universal natural law, debunking legal polylogism (incl. might makes right)

"Including" might makes right? Can you specifically rebut it in particular?

If need be, this should be a really in-depth resource:

https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/

Or this video if you want something brief

Thanks for the resources.

 

[Raven of the Burning God]

Legal codes tend lag culture, so saying "scalpers are doing nothing unethical" may be a true statement, but that does not defend what the scalper is doing, it merely notes that the legal code has not caught up and does not yet contain a claim that the State is justified in harming a scalper.

It's kind of like the recent Supreme Court case in India where groups of men who had been charged with gang rape insisted that the charges were inappropriate because the women they were raping were already dead. And since the people writing the legal code had not contemplated such levels of depravity, the State could not claim it was justified to harm these men for gang raping a corpse (at least, not with justifications relating to gang rape of a living person).

Or the Canadian Supreme Court ruling a few years back that their bestiality law specified penetration of the animal's anogenital orifice(s), and so bestiality in which the animal penetrated the human or the animal was penetrated orally were not covered. They'd had their law for decades, but it wasn't until some degenerate scumfuck was actually willing to make the argument that ACKSHUALLY it wasn't bestiality that the legislature needed to come back to close the identified loophole. In the intervening decades, nobody was under the impression that mouthfucking your pets was A-OK, there just weren't enough disgusting freaks looking at the code trying to pull a fast one.

The formal systems are inadequate to address scalping because people have mostly understood not to be scumfuck scalpers without having to write it down, not because people believe (or would be persuaded by) "scalping is ethical".

 

[UERISIMILITUDO]

I'm amused to learn this guy left his A&N thread to bitch and moan about us in this thread, maybe where he thought we wouldn't find him.

 

[Quindoll]

Since you are a German and think planning is essential. I want to inquire if you live by your beliefs.

What is your insurance planning? Whoch contracts do you have. There are a couple essential once.
What is your retirement planning?

 

[Whatevermancer]

Ok, so we already know that you think it's fine to sell kids fentanyl-laced candy.
What about transing kids? Or letting infinite pajeets into your country?

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Commies are right if they just think people shouldn't die of thirst simply due to misfortune and others' sadistic greed.

Communists have historically starved people to death because they would rather pay for industrialization by exporting grain shipments rather than feed people. I don't think it's a good idea to defend communists when they create misfortune and are pretty sadistic themselves. You should not fall into the trap of believing one's altruism is genuine without considering their motives and actions.