What is the deal with authoritarians and learned helplessness?

[McMitch]

This nigger got ass blasted because he doesn’t agree with the near-universal hatred of scalpers and the fact he’s sabotaging his own position by being in support of them (scalpers adulterate the market through artificial scarcity, thus undermining the market being actually free) that he had to run to mass debates to try and make a hugbox.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

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.

I wasn't defending communism, I was defending the strawman version of communism he constructed where in my hypothetical it was apparently communism to take water from a water hoarder in an emergency. If that's communism (it isn't, guess I gotta spell that out), then communism is good (it isn't good, because that isn't communism).

 

[Drip Torch]

Chimping out in public is the new "free speech". Ever seen a conservative have a meltdown is a restaurant? Don't know why it happens, but have seen this in person way too often.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

If that's communism (it isn't, guess I gotta spell that out), then communism is good (it isn't good, because that isn't communism).

This train of logic has problems too because communists have nominal definitions of communism so its a moot point to debate what communism is to a communist. No communist agrees on what it ought to be which is why they historically split into competing cults and sects. I bring this point up because OP has a very similar flaw in his thinking, as do communists, with this obsession with an universal ethos, and an unnecessary need to save people from themselves.

The fact of the matter is most humans are naturally not libertarians. They tend to be lazy, irresponsible, and needy. They need some form of authority, or violence, to civilize their behavior. People do not voluntarily act reciprocally towards each other (essentially the baseline for the existence of rights) without incentives, and there clearly needs to be some level force or violence to act as one.

The state exists because it's the best tool humans have invented so far to do so. Communists misunderstand state power because they believe it ought to be used to protect the dregs of society (who they wrongly assume to be "victims") instead of eliminating them. Certain Libertarians, similar to OP, are suicidal by their own idealistic terms of "resisting totalitarianism" rather than to acknowledge the consequences of seceding authority to their enemies who could not care less about them or their concept of "rights." Society does not select for people like him which is why Libertarians will always be the minority. They are too libertine to help themselves.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The fact of the matter is most humans are naturally not libertarians. They tend to be lazy, irresponsible, and needy. They need some form of authority, or violence, to civilize their behavior. People do not voluntarily act reciprocally towards each other (essentially the baseline for the existence of rights) without incentives, and there clearly needs to be some level force or violence to act as one.

This here is where I strongly disagree with you.

I say that the state, for some 600 generations, has taught humans to act like a herd rather than individuals.
When the predator grabs one of us, most people don't instantly fall upon the predator and beat him senseless, but instead, they pull back and run away, close their curtains, change lanes, blame the victim.
The good news is that an increasing number of people is remembering that we are not a herd to be sheared or eaten. That humans are, by nature, individuals capable of empathy for our fellow humans.

The good news is that the state is its own worst enemy, it will kill itself. The only question is whether we let it live long enough to take out all of us with it when it goes.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

I say that the state, for some 600 generations, has taught humans to act like a herd rather than individuals.

Humans evolved to survive in groups because they could not survive very well as individuals.

The good news is that the state is its own worst enemy, it will kill itself. The only question is whether we let it live long enough to take out all of us with it when it goes.

I don't think humans would want to exist in a world where nature is still their enemy, and that's not a great win condition. Kenshi is great as a game, but I wouldn't want to live in that type of world. More so, what's the use of bragging about something that will only exist when you are long dead? Seems like a cope, no disrespect. Commies do the same thing.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Humans evolved to survive in groups because they could not survive very well as individuals.

What kind of point is this supposed to be?
Are you insinuating I'm arguing for a world in which there is no interpersonal cooperation?
Or, better yet, are you insinuating that, without a monopolist on taxation, ultimate jurisdiction, and legislation, survival is not possible?

I don't think humans would want to exist in the world where nature is still their enemy

Tough luck, the world is imperfect, as are humans. Nature has gorillions of ways to instantly kill humans, and humans require making use of natural resources in order to survive, let alone thrive and grow.
The alternative to nature is paradise or nirvana.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Are you insinuating I'm arguing for a world in which there is no interpersonal cooperation?

Without state violence, you don't really have that. You're not going to get enough people co-operate on the scale society requires to function. People are going to disagree on the allocation of jobs, services, leadership, actions and responsibilities. We're not talking simple co-operation between friends, but billions of people. Libertarianism doesn't have an answer for that besides preaching moral edicts as if that will make them the law, and force us to live peacefully when they have no real enforcement mechanism for the ethics their society would require.

"Tough luck"

I mean, this applies more so to you than me. Humans aren't ever going to be libertarians. You wouldn't need to constantly fight with us over this if this was the case. Being stubborn, like this, is not going to change the trajectory of your beliefs in society. Bravado doesn't get much mileage in this world. We're not going to change our ways because you demand it.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Without state violence, you don't really have that.

Honestly, your assertions are mindboggling.
The state is the sector of society that acquires goods not through homesteading, production, and trade, but by expropriation.
By definition, for something to be expropriated, it must have been homesteaded or produced first.
Production is anterior to the state, the state is posterior to production.

People are going to disagree on allocation jobs, services, leadership, actions and responsibilities.

So you are arguing that, because disagreement is possible, agreement is impossible?
Again, completely insane. Do you realize how illogical your points are?

We're not talking simple co-operation between friends, but billions of people.

Please do me a favor and read I, Pencil. It's a short read.
I'll stop humoring you on your "interpersonal coordination" arguments until you have familiarized yourself with the logic and arguments posed within.

Humans aren't ever going to be libertarians.

If that were true, then why are there libertarian humans?
Or are you positing that, similar to homo erectus and homo sapiens, the libertarian is a superior and distinct species that is just currently being oppressed by inferior and backwards humans?

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

The state is the sector of society that acquires goods not through homesteading, production, and trade, but by expropriation.

This is a strange non-sequitur that isn't important to the conversation. Its trivia. Libertarians don't seem to understand that states provide the bureaucracy that's necessary for modern society to function as it does. Everything from maintaining electrical infrastructure, monitoring sewage systems for infectious diseases, and even managing satellites in space to ensure we have internet. You're just demonstrating libertarians don't actually understand what states do because you have an idealized understanding of what a state ought to do or how it ought to be.

So you are arguing that, because disagreement is possible, agreement is impossible?

I'm arguing libertarians simply have no answer to actually managing disagreements on the scale society requires because they eschew state bureaucracy and the need of state violence. This is fairly obvious because libertarians have no examples of their ideas persisting. To be honest, you can't even convince Kiwifarms to take Libertarianism seriously, but you expect society will? It's not a view in reality at all.

Please do me a favor and read I, Pencil. It's a short read.

I'm not really interested in erudition. I'm too old for that. I would love for you go out into the world, and actually achieve libertarian goals without abandoning libertarian principles, and not using polemic tracts as Marxists do to argue points. I prefer data, not theories. Besides, if a person truly understands something - they have no problem explaining it in their own words without the use of devices.

If that were true, then why are there libertarian humans?

I seriously doubt you, or even most libertarians, follow libertarian principles outside of this forum, and I doubt you were born a libertarian too. Or even any libertarian. Libertarians largely exist because society always has gadflies like Diogenes by chance. That isn't an assumption of popularity or even an endorsement of that way of life. Especially when most people don't really like your beliefs, and will actively work against them. None of us are really complaining about authority, besides you, you know?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

This is a strange non-sequitur that isn't important to the conversation. Its trivia.

No, this is an important distinction.
How do you differentiate between a state and something that is not a state?
You argue that states provide organization. But organization is perfectly possible without predation.

Everything from maintaining electrical infrastructure, monitoring sewage systems for infectious diseases, and even managing satellites in space to ensure we have internet.

So you argue that all of these things require expropriation from producers?
Because that is what you are arguing by saying that the state is necessary for these things to exist.

I prefer data, not theories.

Delusional sophistry is what this is.
Without theory, data is meaningless.

Besides, if a person truly understands something - they have no problem explaining it in their own words without the use of devices.

Words and sentences are devices. Unfortunately I can't just beam my knowledge into your skull.

I seriously doubt you, or even most libertarians, follow libertarian principles outside of this forum

So you believe that we are unable to live life without stealing, raping, extorting, killing, assaulting, robbing, and defrauding our fellow man?

None of us are really complaining about authority, besides you, you know?

You are complaining about the symptoms of the state. You are complaining about rapefugees, high prices, war, inflation, open borders. Literally all of these are caused by the state. Just because you fail to see the cause of a symptom does not mean that the symptom has no cause.

 

[The Last Stand]

If there's a shortage of necessary supplies and somebody buys it and resells it at exorbitant prices, that's scummy and immoral. Of course, that's taking advantage of limited stock for your OWN personal gain.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

If there's a shortage of necessary supplies and somebody buys it and resells it at exorbitant prices, that's scummy and immoral. Of course, that's taking advantage of limited stock for your OWN personal gain.

And is your own personal gain evil?
If so, then the people who want to buy necessary supplies for cheap are evil too, because "that's taking advantage of limited stock for your OWN personal gain."
The "personal gain is evil" argument is nonsensical.

 

[The Last Stand]

And is your own personal gain evil?
If so, then the people who want to buy necessary supplies for cheap are evil too, because "that's taking advantage of limited stock for your OWN personal gain."
The "personal gain is evil" argument is nonsensical.

In this argument, yes. When COVID hit, people were buying toilet paper en masse until supply ran out. People starting buying limited stock, not to keep, but to upcharge during a pandemic.

 

[Male Idiot]

Oh it is that time of the year.

There is a very simple and logical reasoning.

Rights don't exist. They are just agreed upon rules that are strong as their enforcing mechanisms.

Scalpers are good for the scalpers, but overall degrade the system's efficiency. Scalpers are just like a tax, they are a tax on a transaction. You can easily say that Mr Smith the IRS man is just logically following his right to coerce your tax payments as well.

Generally models are all good and have pros and cons.

National socialism is amazing for a nation, but makes foreign relations somewhat strained.

Communism does better with its international revolution but it can easily fall prey to inefficiency and ideological faults.

Liberal democracy is fine as long as times are good and people are smart, but it can easily be captured by oligarchs and megacorps.

Monarchies are overall good at stability but can suffer greatly if the ruler's bloodline does any error like inbreeding or an insane heir.

Theocracies are also great for stability but can stagnate very easily.

Megacorporations are all about the line up and are horrible for long term civilisations, but at leadt they can organize well.

Far left anarchy and Libertarians can't even reach this step.

The problem with these two is that humans are tribal animals.
A lolbert nation of one or an anarcho tribe will be buttfucked to death by any of the above setups.

An army of one can never match an army of 1000.

See how the anarcho primitive injuns got buttblasted by the corporate democracy of the US.

But lets say that there are no competitors.
Nick Rekieta, Razorfist, Styxhexenhammer and all sovereign citizens got a friendly alien to carry them to Earth 2.0 . They rename this planet to Liberty.

Now on Liberty, they can live without Chyna! invading them.

This civilisation would last a generation, maybe two.
It would fall victim to gangs, robber barons, or any new corporation or form of authority their citizens made.

At best they would be a feral people, ruled by clan warfare like the wild west, but without any supplies provided by a distant supplier.

Libertarianism is just not practical nor possible without genetic engineering or an outside power propping them up, like aliens giving every lolbert his own super robot that can do anything except shoot other lolberts, casting a shield around them and hopefully not letting the 8 year old get high on cocaine.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

How do you differentiate between a state and something that is not a state?

It's not really relevant when Libertarians can't even show real life examples of how they expect to manage people besides the use of force or a state in practice. You can't point to any examples, that would be preferential to what humans do now. You're just preaching about how bad it is without actually doing much to solve a fundamental problem of humanity.

So you argue that all of these things require expropriation from producers?

Yes, all states are built and ran on blood an coercion. That's not going to change ever. The ground you live on is an example of that.

Delusional sophistry is what this is.

The Greek Sophists were people who existed to convince people of insane beliefs like Gorgias. My beliefs are not insane.... most of us agree yours would be. You even think Kenshi is some sort of acceptable way of life for most human beings, something people would want to raise their kids in, to uphold your weird moral grievances about humans organize themselves to survive.

So you believe that we are unable to live life without stealing, raping, extorting, killing, assaulting, robbing, and defrauding our fellow man?

There's no society on Earth that would exist if those things did not happen, and Libertarians have no way of preventing such things to ensure a society does not collapse because they moralize against authority instead of using it to protect people from those things.

You are complaining about the symptoms of the state. You are complaining about rapefugees, high prices, war, inflation, open borders. Li

These are all caused by humans, and humans use states to protect themselves from these things. If you don't want rapfugees, you use a state to deport them. You don't want a war? You have a state strong enough to conscript, or encourage people volunteer to protect you. You don't open borders? You have a military to protect them. You don't like high prices? You ensure you have a state to ensure the enforcement of contracts, the education of productive workers, and the protection of businesses to encourage growth and productivity to de-incentivize fraud and thieves. None of the things you're talking about are possible, by libertarians, because they refuse to use the only tool to exist to accomplish these goals on the scale society requires to survive in any livable way,

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

In this argument, yes. When COVID hit, people were buying toilet paper en masse until supply ran out. People starting buying limited stock, not to keep, but to upcharge during a pandemic.

So? Lots of these people found that buying toilet paper en masse is retarded. Many of them failed to make a profit. Most of them were shunned and ostracized.
I don't really see what argument you are trying to make here. People make free decisions and take on the risks that comes with them.

Rights don't exist.

I have explained in this thread that rights-skepticism is a contradictory and therefore false position. Do you need me to make the argument again, but longer?

They are just agreed upon rules that are strong as their enforcing mechanisms.

You are presupposing the primacy of consciousness, which is something that I reject. I proclaim the primacy of existence. Existence exists, independent from consciousness. The same way, rights exist, independent from any consciousness of any human agreeing to them.
However, I agree that rights need to be enforced in order to make a practical difference. Making the state, a monopolist, the sole enforcer of rights has led to the erosion of rights, the rise of conflict and poverty and chaos. If you are in favor of rights, then you must be in favor of finding a non-statist solution to the problem of social order.

Generally models are all good and have pros and cons.

I agree, which is why I am not debating models here, I am debating real people in reality.

National socialism is amazing for a nation

That's plainly wrong. Look at Germany. Look at it. They are suffering from the consequences of just a few years of national socialism to this day.

Liberal democracy is fine

Liberal democracy is nothing but a form of communism. It disgusts me.

The problem with these two is that humans are tribal animals.

Again, if that is so, then mankind is doomed. Then you should be looking at advancing beyond mankind.

A lolbert nation of one or an anarcho tribe will be buttfucked to death by any of the above setups.

Why? So many people just posit that as a canned response without any real argumentation or logic proving it.
Are you being buttfucked to death right now?
Is your family being buttfucked to death right now?
If not, that is an empirical refutation of your claim.

An army of one can never match an army of 1000.

There are historical examples for overwhelmingly superior forces being defeated by overwhelmingly inferior forces. Asymmetrical warfare is a thing.

See how the anarcho primitive injuns got buttblasted by the corporate democracy of the US.

Yes. If the injuns were capitalists, they would have done a much better job. As would the US have if they were more capitalistic.

Libertarianism is just not practical nor possible without genetic engineering or an outside power propping them up, like aliens giving every lolbert his own super robot that can do anything except shoot other lolberts, casting a shield around them and hopefully not letting the 8 year old get high on cocaine.

That makes no logical sense.
It boggles me how people have no idea about the logic of human action, about economics, about cause and effect, yet act so confidently, as if they had it figured out.

It's not really relevant

No, it is THE single most relevant thing here.
Libertarians oppose the state. The definition of the state is the core matter.
You keep positing that society, progress, industry, organization, collaboration, cooperation, etc.pp. are impossible without the state, aka without coercion and predation.

 

[Frederica Bernkastel]

Communism does better with its international revolution but it can easily fall prey to inefficiency and ideological faults.

The international revolution is a bit a cope by them. Communists controlled nearly half the globe, and couldn't do much but lag behind the west. People tend to forget that Marx began his journey as a radical liberal, along with Engels, and that they became radicalized towards communism because of the propaganda of Robert Owen's followers around the revolutions of 1848. Engels actually wrote a pretty delusional article, in 1845, praising the American/British christian international communities as examples of "real communism." that could solve societies' social problems of poverty and crime. He nor Marx understood how these groupings functioned, or why they were "successful." Marx did not finish Capital because he was studying these same societies, in Russia, as a basis for communism there.

M/E never really dis-avowed Owen completely, and simply thought he was "utopian" because he refused to use the state to expand co-operative societies like anarchists do. Communism honestly just boils down to a really naive belief that egalitarianism is possible by forcing people to live communally, suppressing cultural discontent and ignoring real biological differences. History shows that just ends up in failure for the same reason many of those Christian communities in the early US failed. Preaching morals, being kum-bay-yah, simply isn't enough to ensure humans behave in the matter you wish.

No, it is THE single most relevant thing here.

No, it's just useless pedantry. You just want to justify your philosophy without really proving why people should adopt your axioms. There are no libertarians states or societies on Earth. Most people clearly aren't libertarians. What's there to prove here?

 

[Male Idiot]

You can reject that others don't respect your rights. It won't stop Jamal from forming a gang and outshooting you.

I analyze everything objectively based on results. I do not even consider good or evil, just how things are.

Germany is suffering because they were defeated. They had already been suffering post WW1.

The notion of organised vs unorganised is really simple. A more centralised regime will by default respond faster, better, stronger.
Sometimes gorilla warfare wins, but it is seldom simply unit versus unit.

The US is weak and liberal, thus it lost to the commies who were more fanatical, more willing. Vietcong used Will to Power and Unity of Workers. It was super effective.

You can dislike communism. But if you look at it objectively, it isn't always a total failiure. Stalin tard wrangled them and got pretty well on the nuke and space races.

Chyna wouldn't be a threat to Ronald Rumpf if it didn't at least barely work, even though, Xi forgive me, the current chinese model is a hybrid of communism, nationalism and corporate-state symbiosis.

Humans just don't act on logic in general, and even logic can be applied differently.
I can logically scalp. I can also logically scalp strangers but give discount to my clan, therefore benefiting my entire group at my own expense.
This can result in my clan being more succesful, and getting an early life section on wikipedia.

Maybe transhumanism will work out differently, but cooperation and predation are very useful tools.

The core issue of libertarianism is that communism at least has state violence to enforce it. The only thing holding a libertarian society together is shared belief. If that goes, there is no secondary safety net like the Spanish Inquisition or the Popo.

It only takes a few heretics to tank a libertarian society. A few inbred hicks or nignogs who don't give a bixnood about market forces and rights.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You can reject that others don't respect your rights. It won't stop Jamal from forming a gang and outshooting you.

Then why is the world not conquered by Jamal and his gang?
Why are you still alive? Unless you happen to be Jamal?
Your assertion makes no logical sense.

The notion of organised vs unorganised is really simple. A more centralised regime will by default respond faster, better, stronger.

So you are arguing against unorganized people? That is irrelevant to my point.
Organization is stronger and more efficient in libertarian societies. If you are in favor of organization, embrace libertarianism.

But if you look at [communism] objectively, it isn't always a total failiure.

Communism has been a total success in causing the painful and disgraceful death of millions of communists.
I hereby praise communism as an effective tool in killing communists. What sucks is that lots of innocent non-communists die too, which is why I plead for more efficient means.

Humans just don't act on logic in general

If that were true, then we would all be living in mud huts, or died off tens of thousands of years ago.
Human history is a history of gradual increases in average intelligence, to the point that things like agriculture could develop.
Human history itself is empirical evidence that refutes your claim.

It only takes a few heretics to tank a libertarian society. A few inbred hicks or nignogs who don't give a bixnood about market forces and rights.

Prove it.
So far, so many people are asserting that, but without any proof.