Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - It's PEOPLE! The economy is made of PEOPLE! [dwmf]

(+) Yeah! (+)

SmartMuffin posted...

As a follow up, the other common left-lib canard was always "Well if we have the draft then congresspeople and their own families would actually have to fight the wars rather than just the poor - so they'd be less likely to support war!"

Yeah now you're just screeching at the TV

How hard is it to understand that if Congress enacts a draft, there would still not be a draft. People are gonna go give up their lives just because some rich dudes signed a piece of paper? Trumpism has seriously federalized you beyond repair.
---

So the three examples here (military draft, slavery, open borders) are all good examples of static statism. Statism depends on the mentality that when considering policy changes, it's all about immediate, obvious, static results. You enact a draft, and people have to fight a war. You ban slavery, blacks have no jobs. You close the borders, and no immigrants come in.

It completely ignores the vastly complicated dynamic nature of people and society. You have to think about the reaction that society will have to your policy, and how it will respond. And NEVER is it the case that people will react to your piece of paper with straightforward cooperation. There is always a resistance, and a resistance to the resistance, and so on echoing through history forever. Even if you use guns to the head to enforce cooperation, it doesn't last at all. The wheel always turns.

Modern politics is defined by very smart policies that use this concept to escalate government while keeping resistance low, like multiple loud sound waves destructively interfering with each other to result in silence. A highly discordant policy, like a military draft, would cause a phase shift that totally destroys that careful silence they have constructed. They would never do it.
---

What are you even talking about? People will just leave if there's a draft. That's economics. Or they will revolt in extreme circumstances. The feds do not have the resources to defend against that. Democracy isn't the only way to do things, not sure why you are assuming that.

The last time there was a draft the amount of people who left was trivial. And no one revolted.
---

I admit if we traveled back to 1970, my argument would not make sense
---

I have one argument for the draft that is based in basic history and economics

well then
---

Are you implying history ends in 1970 or what?
---

The history of the draft in America does. For now.
---

wtf

History means things that have happened in the past. That includes the shit ton of wars without a draft. That's part of history and critical to understanding the implications of the draft.

Jusf because some dudes signed a paper doesn't mean history stops. Why would you give politicians such power?
---

What are you even talking about?

The last draft was in the 1970s, and guess what, the vast majority of people complied with it.

What "history" suggests to you that a draft today would not be complied with?

Either 1970 matters (as a historical example) or it doesn't (you saying what happened in 1970 is irrelevant).
---

Of course 1970 matters. But why would I ignore the 40 years after that, including today, where the military has launched hundreds of major military operations and massively grown the military, while avoiding the draft? Why is 1970 more relevant than 1974-2017 for a hypothetical about 2017?
---

But why would I ignore the 40 years after that, including today, where the military has launched hundreds of major military operations and massively grown the military, while avoiding the draft?

This does not, in any way, imply that a draft would shrink the military or result in fewer wars.

But if we look back to the last times drafts actually happened, the military was large and major (and highly pointless) wars were being fought.

There is no historical precedent at all for the draft shrinking the size of the military or resulting in less war. Your idea is based on nothing more than random theorycraft.
---

https://www.unilad.co.uk/funny/single-woman-turns-tables-on-men-and-sends-them-unsolicited-pictures-of-her-vagina/

xfd @ being so stupid to not know exactly how this would turn out

I guess this is what happens when you believe that gender is a social construct and men and women are basically the same except for social conditioning.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

This does not, in any way, imply that a draft would shrink the military or result in fewer wars.

Any other arguments I didn't make that you want to refute?
---

https://twitter.com/Olivia4Naked/status/891550125973221376

setting her two apprentices against each other - more genius!

It's still no substitute for the original, but Poppy is getting a lot better at this. Really getting the hang of it.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

I guess this is what happens when you believe that gender is a social construct and men and women are basically the same except for social conditioning.

i think the social conditioning probably plays a big role here, actually?
---

I guess that's true. Women are definitely conditioned to believe that being propositioned for sex is highly offensive and probably illegal.
---

Imagine if you thought it was in your DNA to send dick pics to people. I guess my DNA is broken.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Imagine if you thought it was in your DNA to send dick pics to people. I guess my DNA is broken.

pretty sure scott adams was arguing that when guys send dick pics to girls, they're giving in to their basic instinct.
---

It's like you didn't even read Scott Adams explainer on this topic!

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153956923691/dck-pics-explained
---

ninja'd
---

He also just admits it's social conditioning. His main argument though is that it is normal (and therefore acceptable) to let your penis control your body to the point of assault though.

It's weird though, I doubt him nor Muffin have ever sent an unsolicited dick pic to a girl. What, have they just never been desperately horny enough? That's hard to believe, and empirically false with Muffin.

So if it's about horniness turning off your brain, why has Muffin always been able to keep his brain on? Is he a super hero? Or are those who blame their penis for shitty decisions just consciously bad people?
---

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-mostly-not-due-to-offensive-attitudes/

I think a lot of this was directly inspired by numerous comments I made on one of his previous posts!

Particularly this part:

If women in these communities feel harassed more often, it’s more likely to be a result of gender balance than a cause of it. That is, if we dectuple the male-to-female ratio while holding the sexual-harasser-ness of each man constant, then each woman faces ten times more sexual harassment.

My argument in his previous post was basically: "It may very well be true that libertarian events present a hostile environment for women - but this is a result of having an imbalanced gender ratio and an imbalance towards socially awkward and low status men. If you put 100 awkward male nerds in a room, tell them their only hope of happiness is to meet someone who share their values, then drop 10 females wearing badges that say 'I share the interests of awkward nerds' into the room, what on Earth do you expect to happen?"

It's not that an imbalanced gender ratio proves sexism, it's that an imbalanced gender ratio leads to sexually aggressive behavior - which is commonly defined as equivalent to sexism. I think one potential solution here isn't just "yell at libertarians to be less sexist and shame anyone who makes a sandwich joke" but rather, stop having cultural memes that insist shared interests are required for romance. This is actually one area where the left-libs (foolmo) and the PUAs seem to agree. The trick to getting dates is to do the exact opposite of what most people tell you to do. Don't go to activity/belief based events hoping to meet "like minded people." Go to bars and ask out every woman in the bar. Even IF you strike out, at least it won't reflect poorly on your political ideology, and IF you get laughed out of the place, at least you're getting laughed out of some dumb bar (who cares) and not a libertarian conference (you probably do care)
---

I mean, you absolutely can look for women at activity/belief based events. You just need to use a different strategy than you would at a bar. It also helps to have at least one activity/belief that isn't ridiculously gender biased!
---

SmartMuffin posted...

stop having cultural memes that insist shared interests are required for romance

This is important but it's also not at all the core of the issue. The fact is, if you drop in 100 male nerds with 10 women, there will likely be harassment, no matter WHAT the women's interests are.

The problem is those dudes are taught that they should proposition women EVERYWHERE. This is bad already in bars where they think they should ask out every woman no matter what availability she is signaling, but it's CRITICALLY worse when at a professional conference where NO ONE is there for sex. This goes back to Adams argument about your penis turning your brain off. I guess all those dudes were just so horny that they forgot they were in a professional environment and not some club? No, they just also view a professional environment as a mating zone.

You can throw around statistics all you want, but the fact is, if you are one of the 100 awkward male libertarians at a conference, you have the ultimate power to affect that harassment statistic. If 10 out of 100 dudes were going to harass, and one of them decided not to, then only 9 out of 100 will. Why would you NOT choose to do that, if you cared AT ALL about your community (libertarianism, games, whatever)? Why would you relegate your behavior to a statistic?

THAT is why people blame communities for pushing away new members. Because they care more about justifying bad behavior with statistics, than using their power to improve the community. That's what makes it a community issue, not just a few bad apples.

Besides, SSC argument is that hostility to women is only <49% the reason for bad gender balance. Which is like, duh? No one would disagree with that. There's way too many other reasons.
---

The problem is those dudes are taught that they should proposition women EVERYWHERE. This is bad already in bars where they think they should ask out every woman no matter what availability she is signaling, but it's CRITICALLY worse when at a professional conference where NO ONE is there for sex.

Just because someone isn't "there for" sex doesn't mean they won't agree to a date in the right set of circumstances. I thought we've gotten past this. There is no "wrong time" or "wrong place" for someone who is handsome and charismatic. And there is no "right time" or "right place" for the socially awkward nerd.

So long as the nerd believes he has a comparative advantage (something libertarians understand very well!) with libertarian women, it makes logical and rational sense for him to target libertarian women. And if libertarian women are ridiculously rare (which they are), he may never have a chance to approach so many ever again. He'd be stupid NOT to go after them!

Why would you NOT choose to do that, if you cared AT ALL about your community (libertarianism, games, whatever)?

You're really confused as to why libertarians are reluctant to subordinate their individual interests to those of a larger collective? Really?

As much as I oppose social shaming, I think it's the only solution that may actually work. Good luck convincing libertarians they need to sacrifice their own individual chances of happiness in order to better serve the needs of the collective, whether that collective is libertarianism (at least that's an ingroup for them), or women in general (which is an outgroup).

"If you try and hit on any women here we will make you unemployable" may be morally dastardly, but at least it would probably work.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Just because someone isn't "there for" sex doesn't mean they won't agree to a date in the right set of circumstances.

This is so extremely far away from this point, since this requires immense tact and social acumen, which these people obviously do not have, BY CHOICE. The criticism is for their CHOICE to be tact-less and unprofessional, not their inability to land a date. Take your Chad whining to r/incels, this isn't about how hot you are.

I guess a better way to say it is no one wants to be "picked up" at a conference. Dates and sex can happen but it's not because of a pick up.

SmartMuffin posted...

So long as the nerd believes he has a comparative advantage (something libertarians understand very well!) with libertarian women

Suddenly nerds are consciously using their brains now? It's not just intense horniness taking over? Good.

So then it should be quite simple to explain that they do NOT have a comparative advantage on people at a professional conference just because society said people who like the same thing as you will bone you. Should be easy to understand. It should also be simple to explain how hunting at a conference and harassing and sending dick pics does NOT improve your chances at all, and in fact ruins them.

But this doesn't work (except at the margins). Lots of men just don't give a shit about logic or "chances" or anything, they just want to harass. THAT is the end goal. Not a date or sex. It's not horniness taking over, it's not misinformed rationality. They are just bad people. How do you deal with that?

SmartMuffin posted...

You're really confused as to why libertarians are reluctant to subordinate their individual interests to those of a larger collective? Really?

I'm confused why these "libertarians" supposedly chase truth and reason in politics and economics and other individual interests, but when it comes to anything sexual, they are subordinate to completely false mainstream globalist propaganda about "same interests"/dick pics, and 100% proud of it.

Is it at all acceptable for a libertarian to be pro war because society conditions them to be so? Then how is it at all acceptable for a libertarian to be pro sexual aggression just because society conditions them to be so?

Shouldn't they look at the facts and logic and history and economics and come to their own conclusion about how to behave sexually, just like they came to their own conclusion about war and keynesianism and such?

This is why you're specifically a bad libertarian for doing this. Either you came to your own conclusion that sexual aggression is the way to go, or you're just some brainless sheep of society.

Game development has a similar fault where either you're okay with intentionally driving away new talent, or you lack the empathy to design a good game.

If we're talking about an MRA or PUA conference... like sure, be hostile to women. Inclusivity isn't inherently valuable in those groups.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

As much as I oppose social shaming

But come on, how can you be so blatant about this while still claiming to be libertarian?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

This is why you're specifically a bad libertarian for doing this.

i'd say he's not a libertarian at all for doing this (i assume that's what you meant).

who cares that he understands the basic principles of libertarianism? it's easy to understand those. it's more important that you can actually apply those principles to present-day issues, and he often does quite the opposite. not just with this "sexual aggression among libertarians is totally understandable" thing - also with his stance on borders, and the way he constantly passionately defends trump (and gets mad at libertarians who attack trump, like tucker, claiming they "don't get it").
---

and yeah, i don't get how muffin can say that it's completely understandable that guys try to pick up chicks at a libertarian conference WHILE ALSO claiming that libertarian chicks are "ridiculously rare." if there's 2% girls at a conference, and a lot of guys try to hit on them (because society tells them they should), doesn't that make the chances of success extremely slim? wouldn't it make more sense to hit on girls in a club, where there's a gazillion times the amount of girls and they're a lot more open to the idea of getting picked up than at a conference?

seriously don't get how this logic works, unless for some reason you're 100% convinced that it's impossible to get into a relationship with a girl if you don't share one specific interest (libertarianism).
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'd say he's not a libertarian at all for doing this

Well HE doesn't do this, despite being a massively horny awkward guy, which is what I was saying earlier in regard to Adams' blog
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

wouldn't it make more sense to hit on girls in a club, where there's a gazillion times the amount of girls and they're a lot more open to the idea of getting picked up than at a conference?

That's the perceived comparative advantage he was talking about. It's completely and blatantly disproven in every way after even 1 minute of thinking about it, but he argues that's what fuels their rationale.
---

it's more important that you can actually apply those principles to present-day issues

What is "libertarian" about demanding individuals sacrifice their own best interests to serve the greater good? That's the exact opposite of libertarianism.

Hitting on women is not an act of aggression. It does not violate the NAP.
---

This is why lasa should not post

But hey you got Muffin to agree that being pro-war is libertarian!
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

wouldn't it make more sense to hit on girls in a club, where there's a gazillion times the amount of girls and they're a lot more open to the idea of getting picked up than at a conference?

That's the perceived comparative advantage he was talking about. It's completely and blatantly disproven in every way after even 1 minute of thinking about it, but he argues that's what fuels their rationale.

No, the concept of comparative advantage is quite sound (basically all of economics, including mainstream economics, is based on it, so good luck arguing this).

The fact that libertarian males have a comparative advantage vis-a-vis libertarian females COULD be wrong, but I doubt it is. It's probably true that they do, and if you understand comparative advantage, you would understand how this makes sense.

What you could be right about is that "therefore, hit on only libertarian girls" does not necessarily follow. That the cost of seeking them out and the punishment of failure is too high. But libertarians, rationalists, and the socially awkward are unlikely to realize this. And all the "reasonable sounding" people in society tell them the opposite. It's only PUAs and male feminists who say "just go hit on randos at bars" and both of those groups are deemed non-credible for various reasons.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

This is why lasa should not post

what was wrong with my post?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

No, the concept of comparative advantage is quite sound

holy fuck this CANNOT be how you interpreted my post

How is this possible?
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTyQgwVvYyc

haven't watched but relevant probably
---

and yeah, i don't get how muffin can say that it's completely understandable that guys try to pick up chicks at a libertarian conference WHILE ALSO claiming that libertarian chicks are "ridiculously rare." if there's 2% girls at a conference, and a lot of guys try to hit on them (because society tells them they should), doesn't that make the chances of success extremely slim?

And yes, but this works the OPPOSITE way you think it does!

Conventional wisdom says: "Your greatest odds of success are with people who share your interests." This changes the mental calculus from "How do I convince people to like me?" to "How do I find the libertarian girls who will obviously like me." It's not entirely rational (a lot of it is a self-defense mechanism to defend the ego) but that's how it works.

So what happens is, the 90% of men in the room know that the room is only 10% women. They know that the other guys in the room want the same thing they do. It ratchets up the competitive intensity. The logical move isn't just "try and hit on the women," but rather, it starts to become "hit on the women quickly" or "hit on the women aggressively just in case they can't tell that you're hitting on them." The pressure of having lots of competition inspires even more aggressive behavior than would otherwise exist. If you're a girl who IS going there to meet a man, that's exactly what you want. But if you're not, it's the exact opposite of what you want.

Consider that if libertarian women were common, if the conference had 60% women and 40% men, there would be no particular rush. There would be no concern. There would be no sense of "Holy shit MUST STRIKE NOW OR SOMEONE ELSE WILL GET HER."
---

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2017/08/a-tale-of-two-conspiracies.html

When I met Jeff Deist I thought he was a little awkward and weird and unimpressive, but you've gotta have some serious balls to drop a line like that during a speech that you know is going on Youtube immediately.
---

I'm not sure what late-stage Rothbard paleo-conservatism is, but that quote really is about recruiting nationalists (racists) "at the risk of irrelevance". I feel like he wouldn't disagree with that at all though? Seems self aware.

Anyways, all these people seem to care way too much about the larger collective of libertarians and what other people think. They should learn from the conference creepers.
---

An institute that holds up two Jews as its founding fathers seems like a poor venue to recruit Nazis.
---

but people have been socially conditioned to believe Jews run great institutes
---

https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/892485878731476993

#MakeTheSunGreatAgain
---

"The path for existing in the USA cuts overwhelmingly through places that voted for Trump."
---

SmartMuffin posted...

An institute that holds up two Jews as its founding fathers seems like a poor venue to recruit Nazis.

Dead jews*

It's either that or irrelevance!
---

Dead jews*

Well Walter Block isn't dead yet!
---

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/28/why-the-left-cant-solve-global-warming

They also can't meme
---

https://picobrew.com/Store/products/pico.cshtml

This strikes me as the exact opposite of what homebrew is supposed to be about. FB targeted advertising strikes again!
---

That looks way too expensive and pointless but also awesome
---

expensive and pointless

hence showing up in my feed

If Facebook doesn't have an advertising market segment literally named "#fakerich" I'm going to be disappointed
---