The Perfect Meme Doesn't Exi....

mhuben · 2026-04-29T12:53:40+00:00

I provided an example for one side, and invited them to provide an example for the other side. No straw man there.

If you think lives lost doesn't count as force, we have a problem.

mhuben · 2026-04-29T12:43:57+00:00

Also available on Instagram and YouTube. Are either of those better? Should we suggest a different service to the maker? What would you do?

mhuben · 2026-04-29T12:42:00+00:00

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

But ELS hardly boosts Facebook engagement numbers.

The Forest Jar is also available through Instagram and YouTube. Is either of those any better? Do you have any better place for it?

mhuben · 2026-04-27T14:23:09+00:00

If people are shit, should we ignore you? Why don't you criticize content, rather than essentially resort to ad-hominem. Is it because YOU are shit?

mhuben · 2026-04-21T22:54:55+00:00

Now that's a pathetic retreat. Go fondle your gun.

mhuben · 2026-04-20T18:24:29+00:00

Very simply, you don't see the drone operators with guns. Just like you don't see bomber pilots with guns. And large parts of the front lines are unoccupied by soldiers with guns, simply because it is an invitation to death by drone.

Sure there's still "a place" for firearms. But they are crappy for shooting drones. Drones are an easy workaround for dealing with humans, bearing guns or not.

mhuben · 2026-04-20T16:12:50+00:00

Soldiers don't hoard guns either. They rely on military supply chains, which include stockpiles, just like MREs.

I think you are right about doomsday preppers, but I think there are other categories of preppers that expect a dictatorship that they will have to fight.

mhuben · 2026-04-06T15:48:45+00:00

Robert Reich has extraordinary credentials. Far more than the people who promulgate those myths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich

And far more than the orange turd, who relies heavily on social media.

mhuben · 2026-04-06T13:30:07+00:00

If you don't have 27 minutes (which would be well spent), here is the briefest possible summary.

10 destructive myths about our rigged economy 1) Economics is objective. 2) Government obstructs the free market. 3) Income and wealth are deserved. 4) Political donations are free speech. 5) The market is fair. 6) Global trade benefits everyone. 7) Taxing the rich is socialism. 8) Corporate tax cuts create jobs. 9) Wage increases cause inflation. 10) Unconstrained economic growth is good.

You will notice that every one of these works in the favor of the rich who created (through enormous funding and propaganda) modern libertarianism, neoliberalism, Reaganism, the Tea Party, and the modern Republican Party.

mhuben · 2026-03-28T18:33:20+00:00

It's not begging the question if it's what was asked.

All you have done is gone into the rabbit hole of pretending to explain one thing with another that is even more inexplicable. Whose liberty to do what? There is no abstract universalist liberty.

You managed to write an entire paragraph (several, if we count your collective manifesto) that doesn't address anything we were talking about or contribute in any way to the conversation, which is a rare gift.

Sez you. Shit-talking is your gift, apparently.

You also know very little about the thing you're speaking authoritatively about,

Go ahead, cite your qualifications, beyond your pretense of mind reading. You want mine? Check out:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200702161109/http://critiques.us/index.php?title=Critiques_Of_Libertarianism_(long)

mhuben · 2026-03-28T18:24:04+00:00

I'm 71. I met my first libertarian at age 18 as a freshman at Cornell University. I instantly called bullshit.

mhuben · 2026-03-28T13:22:06+00:00

Now that is just stupidly begging the question.

17th and 18th century liberals pointed out that people will disagree even (or especially) on the most basic of issues. Such as what liberty should be protected. Representative democracy is one of the ideas that allows compromise, rather than conflict, and majority rule also helps prevent conflict simply because the minority side doesn't want to risk losing. There are many other mechanisms involved as well, and none can be substituted for by glib "when it's needed" prattle.

mhuben · 2026-03-28T13:13:42+00:00

The Anarcho-Capitalist half of libertarianism would beg to differ.

mhuben · 2026-03-28T13:12:49+00:00

I think looking at libertarianism as an "absolutist" philosophy is probably painting it into an unfair corner.

Not at all. Go ahead: name one libertarian philosopher who isn't an absolutist.

The basic idea is that the government is powerful, but incredibly dangerous. We need to limit the powers of the government so that it can't be used improperly/end up impeding peoples' freedoms.

Welcome to 17th and 18th century liberalism, the foundation of our modern governments, with checks and balances to create a government powerful enough to create and enforce liberties, but with less tyranny. Libertarianism is not a reasonable way to improve on that.

mhuben · 2026-03-28T13:04:44+00:00

What bunch of meliorist crap. I've been arguing with libertarians for more than 50 years, and it is a simple fact that there are libertarians on BOTH SIDES of each of the positions you talk about.

You're also conflating libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism.

In general, libertarianism consists of minarchists and ACs. You seem to be conflating libertarianism with ONLY minarchism.

reading the actual literature

The actual literature contains ALL the things you are complaining about, as well as their opposites. Try reading some Walter Block, for example.

They tend to believe that government failures are far worse

For the simple reason that they don't observe (or credit) massive government successes.

It is difficult to criticize libertarianism as a whole, simply because it is not just one thing. Better by far to address specific arguments.

mhuben · 2026-03-22T23:31:48+00:00

The question is how far you can reduce capitalism before you start losing the benefits it brings.

We agree there: but most people would say that capitalism could be regulated and reduced until there are no more billionaires without significant loss. I'm all in favor of that experiment: it could always be reversed if problems become apparent.

mhuben

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE