I think that even Milo would call himself "infamous and controversial", lol; he's pretty much a professional provocateur. However, he isn't simply a troll going around upsetting people; the sole target of his work is a very particular type of political activist, one who advocates censorship, shutting down rational discourse and maximizing social control via Draconian political correctness - in a word, they're totalitarians. And that's not exaggeration; when he's shown up to speak about social issues at college campuses, they've stormed the stage, ripped the mic out of his hands and have even assaulted him.
As long as that doesn't describe you then you're safe from drama. And given how civilized this forum's been when discussing Milo and the alt-right - even when rejecting them - I don't think that "totalitarian" describes this community at all. Also, on that note, thanks for hearing me out, and thanks for the welcoming attitude.
I was crediting those statements to the alt-right, not liberals. And when I referred to "market failures and public goods", I meant that the alt-right believes those ideas to be true. Market failures are when inadequate government regulation yields inefficiency, and public goods are things such as roads that, due to certain characteristics, can't be provided by the market, as there's no financial incentive for them to be produced.
Concerning my own politics, I should probably clarify a couple of things: firstly, I'm a libertarian, as defined above; I reject the legitimacy of the state altogether and instead advocate a government based upon respect for private property. Secondly, I'm not exactly a member of the alt-right; I'm sympathetic to them insofar as I also oppose mainstream conservatism and the left, but I think that the alt-right's ideal form of government is flawed, being supportive of the state. I agree with them on a lot of contemporary issues, but we have somewhat different end goals.
Regarding your point that without regulations, we'd be paying six bucks for a candy bar, I don't see how that could be the case; competition drives prices down and efficiency up, and the elimination of regulations makes it easier for more businesses to start up, yielding more competition, so the absence of regulations should make prices plummet, not skyrocket. In fact, in a capitalist society we could probably buy a Three Musketeers bar with pocket change.
As far as Bioshock goes, I don't think that the writers accurately portrayed capitalism at all; they portrayed self-interest as screwing other people over for one's own material benefit, which is contrary to the writings of capitalists like Ayn Rand, and they betrayed a lack of understanding of economics when raising complaints against capitalism that have been answered a million times by now.
Also, unfortunately, I do not have a DeviantArt account or fully functional cell phone. :(
Ahh, I see…precisely what sort of regulations do they approve of regarding money though? And now I’m mildly confused, by believe market failiures, does it mean they approve of more regulations? And what exactly is their view on public goods?
Oh, a libertarian? Huh…thought you were an alt-righter, then again it was your advocacy of it that confused me. And I can see why that would be something you’d feel sympathy for, since the entire right wing is pretty much a shooting gallery for the media. Still though, refresh my memory, what exactly is the Alt-Right’s ideal form of government?
Okay, I might have gotten carried away again. Perhaps a bigger problem with a lack of regulations could be my fear of ending up in a cyberpunk government. Or more amoral corporations trying (or succeeding) in replacing governments, so I suppose that’s more where my concern of an unregulated capitalist system would lay.
Hmm…that is also true, a better moral for the problems of unbridled capitalism is better shown in pretty much every cyberpunk story ever. Self interest and extreme versions of Objectivism is what Bioshock talks more about.
…Okay then, do you know anyone who has either?
Pretty much everyone but libertarians and maybe some classical liberals want the government to be in charge of money. That is, they want the government to determine the nature, quantity and price of the money used by its citizens. Regarding market failures and public goods, the former is used as a justification for regulations, and the latter is used to justify government spending on things like infrastructure; if the market never failed then there would be no point in regulations, and if public goods didn't exist then the government wouldn't need to be the provider of any services.
Concerning the alt-right's ideal government, it could best be described as conservative in the non-neocon sense of the word: a step to the left from classical liberalism. In other words, generally non-interventionist foreign and domestic policies, with the government mainly providing security, courts, infrastructure and a limited welfare system. There's no uniform position among the alt-right regarding exactly what the government should do, but that's the general idea of it.
Regarding corporations replacing governments, that's very unlikely; the government as an institution is defined not by its wealth or productive capacities but by its exemption from the rules governing the rest of society. The government is given by its citizens a monopoly on the use of violence, which explains its unique powers to tax, regulate, confiscate, imprison and otherwise control its citizens and their property. The power of the government is derived solely from the overwhelming approval of its citizens, and thus if public approval disappeared then so would the government. In a hypothetical capitalist system wherein the government had been abolished, that public approval would not exist at all, and thus no corporation, group of thugs, private military force or any other group could possibly assume the position that the government now holds in our society. The only way in which the government could arise in such a system is if the people reverted back to their old pro-government worldviews.
Also, yes, I know some people who have cell phones but not DeviantArt accounts. Why?
Ahh, well I think I can see why one wouldn’t want the government to be purely in charge of it. The current administration keeps pumping that green out like a fucking minigun…very stupid to keep letting them do that crap. And I see what you mean…well what do you think about market failures and public goods?
Hmm, that idea actually sounds pretty nice in my opinion.
Really?...Okay, well what about the idea of corporations simply seizing control of the government and running it from the shadows? I’d elaborate more on this, but it’s late and I’ve been having trouble getting to this.
Simple, you just need to take pics of the twitter pages…how to get them to me is another matter…what about emails?
Regarding public goods, I think that the definition is so nebulous that anything could be considered a public good, and I fail to see the reason why a thing's status as one should make the government the only possible provider of it. In my opinion, the concept seems to be riddled with fallacies, so I don't think that it's very convincing. A good example of the concept's absurdity is the libertarian satirical case for nationalizing home improvements as well as deodorant, underwear, music or pleasant paintings (all of those things qualify as public goods).
On the other hand, the term "market failure" is plainly dishonest, as it implies that such a failure could be prevented or fixed by something outside of the market, or that such a failure is the product of the market specifically. A more honest term is "human failure" or "government failure", as everything that people cite as being a market failure is either something that would've failed even harder had it been publicly run or something that actually *was* publicly run but was mistakenly called private.
Concerning corporate control of the government, isn't that what we have right now? And that sounds like it'd be a case against forming a government, not a case for it, as it demonstrates the extremely dangerous and corruptible nature of the institution.
Regarding the Twitter stuff, I think that it'd be easier if you looked up the page yourself rather than exchanging emails and screenshots; I've already provided the page's info in a previous post.
Yes, you have a good point on public goods, the government doesn’t need to make roads, you could just as easily hire people to make roads, towns and cities could do it, or other sources. And speaking of which, do you have a link to that article? I’d like to read it.
Glad you see it this way, you’re right that saying an outside force is the only way to solve problems with the market is kinda dumb. It simply just failing because of other factors is more plausible, and the ways to fix them are best done on the end of the creator.
…That is true, and you are right, to be honest I feel that governments need to be periodically purged of corruption altogether (preferably through force), I dunno, like ultraviolent spring cleaning. The main problem with the system is how easy it is for it to be corrupted, I feel there should be some neutral force whose purpose is to try and make corruption as difficult as it can for those who want to do it.
Fair enough, tell me the titles of these Twitters please.
Also, on a non-politics note, how did you hear of Dreamkeepers? Kinda curious now, since you're not an Alt-Righter and presumably wasn't listening to Milos podcast.
Our current system does have the Supreme Court as well as the separation of powers, both of which are meant to prevent or combat corruption. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have worked very well.
The aforementioned Twitter page is called "Nationalist Hero". It's pretty small, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Also, my discovery of Dreamkeepers is a little more political than you'd think; I'm a regular listener to a libertarian podcast called the Tom Woods Show, and the host, Woods (not that one!), appeared as a guest on an episode of Milo's podcast (called MILO, I believe). When I heard about that, I visited the episode in question and listened through the whole thing. It just happened to be the episode in which Milo gave his first endorsement of Dreamkeepers. I checked it out and got hooked on the GNS right away. So yeah, I actually was listening to Milo's podcast, lol.
Oh, and the libertarian piece on public goods is a section of a book, not an article. Thankfully, it's the very first chapter of the book, and it's free:
Chapter 1 starts on page 14 of the document, and pages 17-18 are particularly good.
EDIT: I found another, even better, take on public goods:
No they haven’t…I’d prefer something truly separate from the government though, in fact let’s just say it’d be more like organized vigilantes.
Thank you…also, I got permission to show you the images of Alt-Right twitters my friend showed me, want to see them?
Really? Weird but very lucky coincidence, so your podcaster visited Milo’s own stream, and it happened to bring you to DK? That’s actually kinda funny, ahehheheheheh.
Ah, thank you, I’ll go take a peak at both when I can.
Sure, I'll see the images. I'm not sure how to send/receive images, though.
Okay, I'll send them in a little bit, I need to get at them again, as I've ultimately lost them, excuse me for a bit...could we finish this over forum notes?
Sure, but I'm not sure how forum notes work either, lol.
|Well I've dealt With Milo before (Well mostly just watched and read all his content.) Frankly I understand what people think about him but he's always open to debate, all the time he challenges people to prove him wrong. But all in all he's a shit disturber he stirrs the pot and lets things react. Like why he has a burka which i don't want to go into that on. But Milo isn't exactly the worst out there have you ever heard of SJWS? Now that's insanity. |
But going to the Alt Right its many different movements all under one banner but you can't just say its all one thing. It's like the right and the left. On the Right you have republicans conservationists. Libertarians anarchists Fascists and a few others. On the Left you have Democrats Liberals Marxists Fascists communists SJWs and so on.
Personally i'd say go with Vivid and just ignore Milo
While I appreciate you giving your two cents, it's been a while and I decided to go with Vivid anyways, but thank you :)
Anyways, I haven't really read or watched his stuff...and that is a good point, if he does openly accept challenges to be proven wrong, then that at least puts him above the news media in that sense...still though, when you say shit disturber, is that another word for 'troll' in this case? Just curious.
And trust me, I've heard a lot about SJWs, while I know a guy who's reasonable despite identifying as one, I also know that most SJWs are screwballs.
Fair enough, actually I was speaking with Dudepon about that, and you're right, that actually does fit the description of the Left and Right wings fairly well.
|Shit disturber = Troll |
Yeah I've read some of his stuff he's more anti SJW and the SJWs have no way of attacking him. So they just spew hatred out among other lies.
You must be logged in to post to a thread.