TVP is just totally outside our grasp as a planet. We COULD make ONE of these cities, but it would be a humongous dent in our economy (at least $500B).
If TVP could only just modify their idea slightly, it'd be a terrific concept. Have the US Congress reduce bullshit spending and start making the food industry a government run and controlled industry. Gradually repeat for manufacturing, utilities, transportation.. and voila, you're basically there. Congress needs a survival-based budget imo.
As I already explained to you, this is a false analogy - truth claims are not the same thing as "what I like" claims. The epistemological premises of racism are not comparable to what flavor of ice cream one likes. It is misleading, as well as a copy-catted molyneuxian talking point out of context, to try to pull this off. It is *not* just a preference set - the "preferences" have *reasons*. The *reasons* for the "preferences" are false. Racism is more than a "preference", it is a truth claim.
By concentrating solely on the preference to segregate, you are overtly sidetracking away from the fact that there are truth claims involved here. The use of race and IQ stats to prove innateness and causation is a truth claim. The premise that it is in one's best interest to segregate is a truth claim. The premise that there is such thing as a broad category of "races" which can be classified as having their own psychologies and values is a truth claim. Your sophistry cannot get around this.
Racism is a product of the state. Without the state you do whatever makes the most profit. He's already made videos on this. Without the state racism would die. You don't have this artificial entity physically blocking either through direct physical methods or financial legislation. The US is financially segregated and anyone who tries to say anything about fixing the situation or that it exists is dubbed a racist. If we got rid of welfare racism could not exist in the long term.
Not necessarily. I might value people of European descent, or their phenotype, for its own sake - regardless of IQ, genetic kinship etc. Maybe the idea that race is a social construct doesn't conflict with my preference. You are generalising racialism, when you say that racialists cannot value their perceived race or ethnic group in and of itself, as a primary source of value.
If ethnic segregation is just what would make me happy, what I desire in itself, then there is nothing irrational about my position for you to criticise.
It is quite possible for someone to love and value something, like their family or a favourite ornament, without referring to another underlying preference, and the same extends to any subjective class of people that a person identifies with, whether or not this is a real biological category or if this distinction serves some other purpose.
Stodles, your position, at a minimum, has the function of legitimizing and tolerating racial separatism, and racial separatism and its implicit assumptions are false and negative. It matters not one bit to the fundamental point if you yourself are not explicitly a racial separatist anymore, or if the people you are defending do not explicitly advocate genocide. Genocide is not what is in contention, racial separatism in general and the racist assumptions it is predicated on is in dispute.
You have demonstrated, over and over again, that you clearly do not find racial separatism to be fundamentally objectionable in and of itself. You have also demonstrated, over and over, that you accept, to one degree or another, the idea that science and empirical statistics prove innate causation determining intelligence, psychological and behavioral traits of "races" in a fairly general way. This, by the very least, puts you in the Charles Murray category of racism.
You have also, through various comments, made it quite clear that you more or less consider the entire "cultural left" to be "modal" emotivists who want to "force their preferances on everyone", while at the same time you have treated arch-conservative and european nationalist groups as "understandable" (in your own words), and portrayed them as essentially innocent, if not "victims". This is hypocritical and downright incorrect, and reduces to a form of victimology in and of itself.
This clear tendency to selectively make attacks on "the left" while opening the door wide open for the most reactionary and extreme elements of "the right", by pandering to them, enabling them and legitimizing them, is simply disturbing. You apologize for and play the victimology card for theocrats, racists, nationalists and patriarchs while implying that broad anti-authoritarians are the truth authoritarians for daring to have values and objecting to such things.
Give me an accurate description of the type of people you would like to use restrictive covenants to isolate yourself from, and I'll do a video briefly explaining why its retarded (assuming it is, and it probably is).
I won't discuss the issue unless I'm given a clear description of your position. My understanding is that you support the idea of people isolating themselves from outsiders based on race.
The very basis of this restrictive covenant concept reduces to absolutist propertarian claims over land. The restrictive covenant is essentially a perpetual/intergeneration contract based on an absolutist land claims over an entire community that excludes people from the entire community. By hiding behind the rhetoric of "free association" and by appealing to "property rights", stodles obscures this. It is the same thing as "the social contract".
If, on either geoist or mutualist grounds, one rejects absolutist propertarianism or contractarianism in land, then the rug is pulled out from under the entire "restrictive covenant" concept. Furthermore, if one conceptualizes individual rights as inalienable and does not believe in the externalization of contracts onto 3rd parties of bystanders, then the concept is deligimized even more to the extent that such contracts are treated as perpetual and binding on everyone in the community.
To take matters even further, if breach of "the restrictive covenant", by people freely associating in spite of it, is reacted to with violent enforcement, then it likely reduces to an NAP violation in the first place. The moment that people associate more inclusively, the contract is essentially nullified unless some sort of violent enforcement mechanism is in place to keep the contract in perpetuity for the entire community. In substance, this reduces to communitarian statism.
But, to put aside the problems with Hoppe's "restrictive covenant" nonsense, yes, stodles supports, or at least tolerates and legitimizes, the creation of communities that are absolutely ethnically separatist on this basis. You are not strawmanning him by saying that he supports the idea of entire communities being ethnically separatist, as he has repeatedly defended it by returning to the "restrictive covenant" concept and via misleading appeals to freedom of association.
why are you always trying to associate people with other people? .. now you are trying to associate Xomini with BP ... it seems like you have such a need to organize in the world in such absolutist terms for a moral nihilist. Which is odd considering.
You are making inaccurate generalions, Xomni is analysizing it from a rational POV, you wish to overgeneralize.
Well, both me and Xomni are essentially coming from the same perspective on this - "thick libertarianism" and neo-aristotileanism. Stodles does not seem to understand this perspective, and strawmans what it is all about.
Keep your cool, you're a smart guy and I know you're right on this argument. Others however probably won't perceive it that way because of the way you're handling it. It's the internets, not srs business.
Yes, it's the education camps. Don't be a racist, races don't exist. We only evolved different color of skin to adapt to the sun, everything else was the same.
Statistics? What is that? You're a racist.
Seriously now, I don't know shit about race and IQ, but just from seeing the way people jump all over this and never address any arguments or study, I know what the truth is.
Sorry Stodles, I had to rate this one star. You're coming off as a child here and I can't take this video too seriously because of it. Stop taking these debates so personally and remain level headed, you might have some more credibility.
TVP is just totally outside our grasp as a planet. We COULD make ONE of these cities, but it would be a humongous dent in our economy (at least $500B).
If TVP could only just modify their idea slightly, it'd be a terrific concept. Have the US Congress reduce bullshit spending and start making the food industry a government run and controlled industry. Gradually repeat for manufacturing, utilities, transportation.. and voila, you're basically there. Congress needs a survival-based budget imo.
katsumorymoto 1 year ago
As I already explained to you, this is a false analogy - truth claims are not the same thing as "what I like" claims. The epistemological premises of racism are not comparable to what flavor of ice cream one likes. It is misleading, as well as a copy-catted molyneuxian talking point out of context, to try to pull this off. It is *not* just a preference set - the "preferences" have *reasons*. The *reasons* for the "preferences" are false. Racism is more than a "preference", it is a truth claim.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
By concentrating solely on the preference to segregate, you are overtly sidetracking away from the fact that there are truth claims involved here. The use of race and IQ stats to prove innateness and causation is a truth claim. The premise that it is in one's best interest to segregate is a truth claim. The premise that there is such thing as a broad category of "races" which can be classified as having their own psychologies and values is a truth claim. Your sophistry cannot get around this.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Racism is a product of the state. Without the state you do whatever makes the most profit. He's already made videos on this. Without the state racism would die. You don't have this artificial entity physically blocking either through direct physical methods or financial legislation. The US is financially segregated and anyone who tries to say anything about fixing the situation or that it exists is dubbed a racist. If we got rid of welfare racism could not exist in the long term.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Not necessarily. I might value people of European descent, or their phenotype, for its own sake - regardless of IQ, genetic kinship etc. Maybe the idea that race is a social construct doesn't conflict with my preference. You are generalising racialism, when you say that racialists cannot value their perceived race or ethnic group in and of itself, as a primary source of value.
XSamal 2 years ago 2
that's a good point. We naturally are attracted towards people that look like us.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
If ethnic segregation is just what would make me happy, what I desire in itself, then there is nothing irrational about my position for you to criticise.
It is quite possible for someone to love and value something, like their family or a favourite ornament, without referring to another underlying preference, and the same extends to any subjective class of people that a person identifies with, whether or not this is a real biological category or if this distinction serves some other purpose.
XSamal 2 years ago
Stodles, your position, at a minimum, has the function of legitimizing and tolerating racial separatism, and racial separatism and its implicit assumptions are false and negative. It matters not one bit to the fundamental point if you yourself are not explicitly a racial separatist anymore, or if the people you are defending do not explicitly advocate genocide. Genocide is not what is in contention, racial separatism in general and the racist assumptions it is predicated on is in dispute.
brainpolice2 2 years ago 2
You have demonstrated, over and over again, that you clearly do not find racial separatism to be fundamentally objectionable in and of itself. You have also demonstrated, over and over, that you accept, to one degree or another, the idea that science and empirical statistics prove innate causation determining intelligence, psychological and behavioral traits of "races" in a fairly general way. This, by the very least, puts you in the Charles Murray category of racism.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
You have also, through various comments, made it quite clear that you more or less consider the entire "cultural left" to be "modal" emotivists who want to "force their preferances on everyone", while at the same time you have treated arch-conservative and european nationalist groups as "understandable" (in your own words), and portrayed them as essentially innocent, if not "victims". This is hypocritical and downright incorrect, and reduces to a form of victimology in and of itself.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
This clear tendency to selectively make attacks on "the left" while opening the door wide open for the most reactionary and extreme elements of "the right", by pandering to them, enabling them and legitimizing them, is simply disturbing. You apologize for and play the victimology card for theocrats, racists, nationalists and patriarchs while implying that broad anti-authoritarians are the truth authoritarians for daring to have values and objecting to such things.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Give me an accurate description of the type of people you would like to use restrictive covenants to isolate yourself from, and I'll do a video briefly explaining why its retarded (assuming it is, and it probably is).
I won't discuss the issue unless I'm given a clear description of your position. My understanding is that you support the idea of people isolating themselves from outsiders based on race.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
The very basis of this restrictive covenant concept reduces to absolutist propertarian claims over land. The restrictive covenant is essentially a perpetual/intergeneration contract based on an absolutist land claims over an entire community that excludes people from the entire community. By hiding behind the rhetoric of "free association" and by appealing to "property rights", stodles obscures this. It is the same thing as "the social contract".
brainpolice2 2 years ago
If, on either geoist or mutualist grounds, one rejects absolutist propertarianism or contractarianism in land, then the rug is pulled out from under the entire "restrictive covenant" concept. Furthermore, if one conceptualizes individual rights as inalienable and does not believe in the externalization of contracts onto 3rd parties of bystanders, then the concept is deligimized even more to the extent that such contracts are treated as perpetual and binding on everyone in the community.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
To take matters even further, if breach of "the restrictive covenant", by people freely associating in spite of it, is reacted to with violent enforcement, then it likely reduces to an NAP violation in the first place. The moment that people associate more inclusively, the contract is essentially nullified unless some sort of violent enforcement mechanism is in place to keep the contract in perpetuity for the entire community. In substance, this reduces to communitarian statism.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
But, to put aside the problems with Hoppe's "restrictive covenant" nonsense, yes, stodles supports, or at least tolerates and legitimizes, the creation of communities that are absolutely ethnically separatist on this basis. You are not strawmanning him by saying that he supports the idea of entire communities being ethnically separatist, as he has repeatedly defended it by returning to the "restrictive covenant" concept and via misleading appeals to freedom of association.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
why are you always trying to associate people with other people? .. now you are trying to associate Xomini with BP ... it seems like you have such a need to organize in the world in such absolutist terms for a moral nihilist. Which is odd considering.
You are making inaccurate generalions, Xomni is analysizing it from a rational POV, you wish to overgeneralize.
aaron0883 2 years ago
Well, both me and Xomni are essentially coming from the same perspective on this - "thick libertarianism" and neo-aristotileanism. Stodles does not seem to understand this perspective, and strawmans what it is all about.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
confederalsocialist, I had no idea you had another account, do you have any more beyond those two?
dhushw 2 years ago
Comment removed
Robinsonero 2 years ago
Keep your cool, you're a smart guy and I know you're right on this argument. Others however probably won't perceive it that way because of the way you're handling it. It's the internets, not srs business.
ascendedgoddess 2 years ago
Yes, it's the education camps. Don't be a racist, races don't exist. We only evolved different color of skin to adapt to the sun, everything else was the same.
Statistics? What is that? You're a racist.
Seriously now, I don't know shit about race and IQ, but just from seeing the way people jump all over this and never address any arguments or study, I know what the truth is.
I don't even need to do the research.
NoCryingNowYes 2 years ago
What a ridiculous mocking of the arguent.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Sorry Stodles, I had to rate this one star. You're coming off as a child here and I can't take this video too seriously because of it. Stop taking these debates so personally and remain level headed, you might have some more credibility.
ascendedgoddess 2 years ago