/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13877210]

Is it good?

[Anonymous No.13877218]

>>13877210
Hoppe did IT better.

[Anonymous No.13877225]

>>13877210
Don't need to read a book to know democracy is retarded. It's the only system which gives equal power to the subhuman canaille and the experts/scholars/philosophers/theorists/etc.

[Anonymous No.13877229]

>>13877218
I have a bro-crush on Hoppe for some reason.

[Anonymous No.13877235]

>>13877218
>Hoppe
Literally who?

[Anonymous No.13877239]

>>13877235

[Anonymous No.13877240]

>>13877225
That’s not true.

[Anonymous No.13877269]

Yeah it's a pretty thorough destruction of democracy and the best arguments that support it. It's a great source of empirical citations to support the case against democracy too. Some people might get the idea that he's arguing for something extreme but really all he's advocating for is a more experimental approach to the franchise, a limited epistocracy in other words. Of course you don't have to agree with him on that in order to appreciate his arguments against democracy.

[Anonymous No.13877307]

>>13877235
The libertarian that triggers libertarians

[Anonymous No.13877632]

Yes it's very good indeed. Its criticisms stand on their own even if you don't agree with the author's libertarian standpoint. It's a very thorough book too. It literally goes through every single case ever made for democracy. Highly recommended.

[Anonymous No.13877638]

>>13877235
Democracy, The God That Failed.
That title doesn't ring any bells? if not, kys.

[Anonymous No.13877664]

The idea of replacing democracy with some system that gives more power to better informed voters is total shit. The main political fights in that future would be about what exactly counts as "better informed" and everyone would try to manipulate it to their advantage.

[Anonymous No.13877731]

>>13877664
Every currently existing or conceivable political system is and will be manipulated by bad actors so it can't be used as an argument against trying something new that might perform better and give us better policies. What we see in reality is a vast disconnect between the policy preferences of experts and common people and it is hurting us, with the minimum wage being a good example. Experts oppose it but regular people support it and it's hampering economic growth. Politicians shouldn't have to pander to people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13877737]

>>13877210
How about this instead?

>>13877235
Rightwing brainlet. Never mind.

[Anonymous No.13877742]

>>13877731
>hat we see in reality is a vast disconnect between the policy preferences of experts and common people and it is hurting us, with the minimum wage being a good example. Experts oppose it
Source?

[Anonymous No.13877758]

>>13877210
Better to read its citations than the book.

[Anonymous No.13877761]

>>13877742
You can read the book yourself. That's literally what half the book is about.

[Anonymous No.13877767]

>>13877210
Could democracy work if votes were weighted by IQ?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13877769]

>>13877731
Relegate the experts and the concerned parties to their spheres of influence and localities. Drop the antiquated concept of a nation-state and let people run their own lives *Democratically*

[Anonymous No.13877774]

Fuck off butterfly. You're filtered and I'm reading your stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.13877786]

>>13877761
the economy is more centralized than its ever been.
Small businesses are few and jobs are being lost to automation anyways.
What is the case agaisnt minimum wage exactly?
Some supply and demand chart done by monetarists in the 80's?

[Anonymous No.13877790]

>>13877767
Being an IQ apologist is a midwit thing.

[Anonymous No.13877793]

>>13877790
IQ is the most reliable intelligence score we currently have.

[Anonymous No.13877825]

>>13877786
Jesus man what the hell does centralization and small business have to do with anything? If you don't know why the minimum wage is bad there's no reason for me to talk to you.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13877846]

>>13877793
No it isn’t. Having a conversation with someone is far more accurate

[Anonymous No.13877851]

>>13877825
the whole argument about minimum wage revolves around the fact that itll hurt small businesses.
Nobody cares about the corporation's bottom line.

[Anonymous No.13877852]

>>13877786
>What is the case agaisnt minimum wage exactly?
Holy shit, you're a moron. Bosses have to pay their workers. If you increase minimum wage, the price of products will go up to compensate; otherwise they couldn't pay them.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13877874]

>>13877852
>the price of products will go up to compensate the bosses bloated salaries because fuck you all, he’s getting that Christmas bonus, not any of you

This is not what drives inflation, liberal.
>they couldn’t pay them
They cheat them, anon. That’s the business model of capitalism. Holy fuck you stupid bootlicking parrot

[Anonymous No.13877882]

>>13877874
>They cheat them, anon.
No, they don't.

[Anonymous No.13877883]

>>13877731
What do you mean by "bad actors" and why wouldn't a technocratic elite be worse?
If you seriously think lowering wages spurts growth and you respect "experts" you should go back and reread Keynes.

>>13877786
Monetarism is about monetary policy dingus. Advocates of wage cuts generally seem to think it'll somehow boost profit and make businesses expand spending on more employees.

>>13877767
Higher intelligence may correlate with more destructive autism. Giving more intelligent people a bigger say may decrease everyone’s welfare.

>>13877852
You're ignoring revenue I see lol
You're not talking about a business but an aggregate of businesses.

[Anonymous No.13877892]

>>13877883
>Giving more intelligent people a bigger say may decrease everyone’s welfare.
Good.
>You're not talking about a business but an aggregate of businesses.
How so?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13877926]

>>13877882
>if its contractual it’s not technically cheating
BOOTLICKER. We have no choice but to buy into their sick game. “Don’t like working, go find another job” to be exploited there. Imbecile.

[Anonymous No.13877930]

if the so called libertarians are in favor of freedom why do they pass laws that deny the working class the ability to form unions?

[Anonymous No.13877941]

>>13877926
You make this board a worse place than it should be.

[Anonymous No.13877942]

>>13877926
What's your alternative?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13877945]

>>13877930
>Forced unionization states
What the? Hahaha.

[Anonymous No.13877946]

>>13877235
based retard

[Anonymous No.13877951]

>>13877930
I'm going to force you to join my group which requires a portion of your paycheck and uses that to fund politicians you disagree with and you're going to like it because that's freedom.

[Anonymous No.13877966]

>>13877892
>Good.
Making everyone poorer seems bad.
>How so?
It's essiently the paradox of thrift. If everyone starts belt tightening to get ahead no one can get ahead.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13877968]

>>13877941
Leave.

>>13877942
The end of states and capitalism for a collection of autonomous democratically directed communities that could use non accumulative currency or simply share their wealth.

[Anonymous No.13877977]

>>13877951
if the majority of workers agree to it why should you be the special snowflake that ruins it fir everyone else?
i dont see people working for ups complaining about their union.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13877985]

>>13877951
“Union dues” aren’t a part of your paycheck, they’re from the company, dumb-dumb.
New Deal unions are poor joke though

[Anonymous No.13878007]

>>13877966
>Making everyone poorer seems bad.
Not everyone is on welfare.
>It's essiently the paradox of thrift. If everyone starts belt tightening to get ahead no one can get ahead.
You're making no sense with that vague bullshit.
>>13877968
And how would you make this happen?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13878030]

>>13878007
Nice try FBI

[Anonymous No.13878031]

>>13877793
Yes but you retards make it a bigger deal of what it actually is. It's still very unreliable.

>>13877846
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.13878051]

>>13878030
I agree with your ideology almost entirely. But I have to ask, what's your stance on technology?

[Anonymous No.13878058]

>>13878007
>Not everyone is on welfare.
Holy shit you're stupid. The term "welfare" in economics is generally used to refer well being not "welfare programs".
>You're making no sense with that vague bullshit.
When everyone starts decreasing wages corporate revenue can fall even faster than expected as people cut their personal spending or the alternative is a build up in private debt leading to future defaults and instability.

[Anonymous No.13878067]

>>13878058
>The term "welfare" in economics is generally used to refer well being not "welfare programs".
I'm not used to hearing it that way. More often, the word directly refers to welfare programs.
>When everyone starts decreasing wages corporate revenue can fall even faster than expected as people cut their personal spending or the alternative is a build up in private debt leading to future defaults and instability.
Those are some ridiculous assertions. Do you have any rationale to back that up?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13878090]

>>13878051
It marches on. Ending capitalism would redirect its utility from war machines and consumerism to preserving nature and making a more sustainable way of life. Certainly living with less energy consumption should be a goal.

[Anonymous No.13878123]

>>13877731
name some of those "experts" anon

[Anonymous No.13878125]

>>13878090
>It marches on.
Impossible with the ideology you described. Nearly all post-industrial technology is organization-dependent.
I'm not pointing this out as a flaw in your ideology, but rather a flaw in modern technology. I think we should go back to how America's founding fathers lived (before industrialism), with the exact social climate you described. That would be the best for humanity as a whole.

[Anonymous No.13878140]

>>13878067
>I'm not used to hearing it that way. More often, the word directly refers to welfare programs.
You're not familiar with the academic literature. If anything the terms used more by right wingers to dismiss the idea political interventions can work (contestable):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics

>Those are some ridiculous assertions. Do you have any rationale to back that up?

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1010

[Anonymous No.13878149]

>>13878140
>http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1010
Your link is broken.

[Anonymous No.13878165]

>>13878125
There's democratic confederalism.
It's being put into practice by the kurds in Syria.
Its kind of ironic that the US is the one helping fund it.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13878222]

>>13878125
>Impossible with the ideology you described
Not really no. It doesn’t discourage organization. Rabid individualists can go off (and invent on their own even) but plenty of people will continue to come together, implement all sorts of projects with little encumbrance now that money isn’t an obstacle.
We could certainly advance technology in simple, small, ecologically unintrusive ways, as long as we fix the environment I don’t care how long it would take

>>13878165
This a good read? Been pocking into two Bookchin books this year (Ecology of Freedom and The Next Revolution) how does it differ?

[Anonymous No.13878244]

>>13877731
This tbqh. The real problem is, and always has been, who are, and who determines, the experts?

[Anonymous No.13878251]

>>13878222
Fair enough. Have some reasons about why we *shouldn't* have post-industrial technology, then: (>>13873375)

[Anonymous No.13878274]

>>13878222
DESU I do not really care about the enviornment specificly. I feel that most arguments see its value as purely aesthetic, or it being a simple roundabout way for caring for humanity in general. I believe preserving nature should not be an ends (Nature is ever changing anyways, we are a subset of itso whatever we do is considered natural from a higher standpoint), but the proper cultivation of it should be a means alone.

[Anonymous No.13878292]

>>13878251
No way dude, technology is good.
Otherwise you might as well join the Amish.
Technology is specially good under any form of socialism since it frees people up to do what they want instead of being unemployed.
What would you rather do?
Work as a farmer or have a gps driven tractor do that stuff and you can focus on fishing or whatever?

[Anonymous No.13878302]

>>13878292
>Technology is specially good under any form of socialism since it frees people up to do what they want
That's a reason why it's bad. People, by nature, require struggle.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13878357]

>>13878251
All good points, especially
>The destruction of tightly-knit communities and ancient cultures
Without the system of state-capitalism I think the nature of technology would be refocused, and I would hope that these communities would address all these issues

>>13878274
>Nature is ever changing anyways
I can’t stand the thought of these flora and fauna dying off, just shrugging off hundreds of millions of years of their evolutionary history. Yes of course I want the human species to go on too, but without the others? Too sad to contemplate

[Anonymous No.13878452]

>>13877737
I'm gonna guess this is in favor of direct democracy or some garbage? Get a job. a real job, retail or restaurants don't count.

[Anonymous No.13878522]

>>13878357
What I am saying, is that many of those species would end regardless. Does it really matter if it is by human hands or the efficiency of some other flora or fauna that pushes them out of their niche? No. I think its absolutly self indulgent to place ourselves outside of the system and hold ourselves to a different standard than that of a rat or cat in regards to our relation to other creatures.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13878532]

>>13878452
>two thirds of Americans workforce don’t count
Which is why I want to shatter the status quo. That’s the job I want

Burnheim favors something called demarchy. Check it out

[Anonymous No.13878561]

>>13878532
>>two thirds of Americans workforce don’t count
yeah, that's right. you're redundant at best.

[Anonymous No.13878576]

>>13878532
They shouldnt because most people are idiots. event our representitive form is too swayed by public opinion, even more would break it wholly. direct works for a small place like a euro city state, where politics are small scale and understandable, but they tend to be very inefficient the more complex a state is.

[Anonymous No.13878636]

>>13878576
why do you act like democracy doesn't work with the permission of the elites anyways.
Bernie got cucked out the presidency because of the elites
Trump was allowed to mess with China because the elites consider China a threat now
And Yang is allowed to run his campaign for basic income with the permission of silicone valley because they actually know what's going on in the economy
There is no politician that is above the establishment.
Which is also why there will never be tax reform and the military will never get out of the middle east until ((they)) decide.

[Anonymous No.13878744]

>>13877218
fpbp

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13878776]

>>13878561
>redundant

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13878799]

>>13878576
That’s just my argument. You don’t need states. States exist to support elites *we don’t need* and to wage wars for them. This is an ancient institution that we need to end.

[Anonymous No.13878826]

>>13878799
Wrong. States exist to restrain the wickedness of man.

[Anonymous No.13878838]

>>13878799
>having this much faith in the proles
i'm gonna guess you live in a white area. >>13878776
is some half-cute chick in rags supposed to mean something ?
>>13878636
almost there. except you forgot where they eat whatever shit they get flushed down to them every time.

[Anonymous No.13878849]

>>13878636
I do not disagree, in that cause we are not in a total direct democrasy anyways as is, but the public opinion is still sought after, even if it is through manipulation.

[Anonymous No.13878859]

>>13878826
Why should the state get to decide what is and isn’t wicked?

[Anonymous No.13878867]

>>13878849
you think someone else would control information in a direct democracy? retard.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13878872]

>>13878826
False excuse they feed the feeble minded

>>13878838
The future minds that can be. Stop thinking like Plato so goddamn much, you fool. We weren’t molded from sand by god, we evolved from animals.

Pic is Björk playing a part in an old movie. I don’t want to be redundant

[Anonymous No.13878873]

>>13878799
Besides the point. State or stateless, the masses are not intellectually sound arbitrators of policy.

[Anonymous No.13878878]

>>13878532
>democracy
>inclusive

[Anonymous No.13878895]

>>13878872
>we evolved from animals.
hence why your average person should be bred, controlled, and culled like one or you let them run free, but modern life is not compatible with that.

[Anonymous No.13878909]

>>13878895
And the later is practicly imposible, as social animals with reason, they would naturaly form societies and become what they are today. The only way to prevent that would be to have an overarching power which defeats the point.

[Anonymous No.13878919]

>>13878165
It's also kind of ironic that Rojava is actually an impoverished one-party state.

[Anonymous No.13878920]

>>13878859
Verily, the law of man is tyranny and oppression. But God's law has been revealed to us. The sovereign should be anointed by the Church (body of Christ) so it may be understood that his power comes from God.

[Anonymous No.13878935]

>>13878909
to what end? the former is what we're working towards and it's stated end is a hell of mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.13879125]

>>13878935
Mediocrity is far from the worst case scenario. Anyways, the latter is a moot point due to its impossibility to implement, and more importantly, maintain.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13879137]

>>13878873
>>13878895
The masses can. Minds are malleable that way. That’s not besides the point *I* am making.

>>13878878
>not knowing what democracy is
>12029
>>13878920
>rimshot

[Anonymous No.13879148]

>>13878744
>Mises Institute
Opinion invalidated.

[Anonymous No.13879287]

>>13879137
>Minds are malleable that way
ok, but to do that you need centralized schooling, something a la plato's republic, something that is inherently structual anyways. without a body of enforcement, people with "deviant" thoughts, that is thoughts of corporation, would develop somewhere, then without a body of enforcement (again something that would need a state like body, be that sydicalist or what have you) one could not stop the power accumulation of the afformentioned corporate body. You need a corporate body to prevent corporate bodies from rising, a catch 22.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13879339]

>>13879287
Comprehensive education, yes. I Donno about centralized. Hey, I would certainly prefer a nice religion killing curriculum assigned to everyone, but guess who would rather killing us all in a fiery nuclear Armageddon than to see that enforced.
No. Reject states and you get a more or less leveled concern for basic and higher education, and enough time for those interested to continue their educational pursuits for even longer

[Anonymous No.13879417]

>>13877235
good post. retards here mistake meme status for relevance.

[Anonymous No.13879628]

>>13879339
how can you establish comprehensive curriculum without centralization? you say reject states, but that statement is nebulous. What is the difference between a state and corporation? there is none (in the classical sense that is), it is simply a landed corporation, tat in the modern age is suppose to regulate internal affairs. and corporations arrise within any sort of social body. A state will form within even a theoretical stateless place as there is no counteracting force.

[Anonymous No.13879719]

>>13879628
"stateless communism" could only work in a more primitive society.
Like if the society mostly dealt with agriculture, okay every farmer is paid in labor vouchers and that's it.
But society nowadays is too complex for that sort of thing.
If communism were implemented in a large nation there is no way around marxism.
Ideally I think a more pragmatist approach would be taken.
The large corporations would be collectivized and turned into worker cooperatives which could keep the profits but would be heavily taxed. As opposed to be nationalized and ran by the government.
The rest of society would be allowed to have a free market and there'd be a national bank.
I think that's more in line with what karl marx initially had in mind.

[Anonymous No.13879806]

>>13877210
His critique of democracy is good and very compelling. His alternative isn’t so much.

He basically argues for a sort of democracy where suffrage is restricted to well informed people. ‘Epistocracy’ is what he calls it; rule by the knowledgeable.
The obvious problem, which he doesn’t convincingly solve, is that any criteria or test you want to institute to decide who votes and who doesn’t is always susceptible to corruption. Everybody in power is always incentivized to restrict the vote in a way that favours your supporters. Normal democracies have that problem already, even where there is a dominate ideology of ‘one person, one vote’. The moment you accept a dominate ideology that explicitly endorses a notion of ‘some people should vote, some should not’ that instinct towards disenfranchisement will go off the rails.

He doesn’t go so far as Moldbug so he ends up in a sort of worst of both worlds situation.

[Anonymous No.13879823]

>>13879806
you know whats ironic is that the well informed people would be more likely to vote democrat.

[Anonymous No.13879828]

>>13877218
This

[Anonymous No.13879840]

>>13879823
>Well informed people are more likely to vote Democrat
If you were well informed about American politics at all you'd realize how interchangeable Republicans and Democrats are

[Anonymous No.13879842]

I find it interesting that there are so many books recently that attack democracy but very few that attack liberalism. We are commonly assured that we live in a "liberal democracy" but whenever something goes wrong it is always democracy part that gets attacked, rarely the liberal part. Personally, I'd much rather see liberalism go than democracy.

[Anonymous No.13879848]

>>13877225
>experts/scholars/philosophers/theorists
But those are exactly the ones who tell the "canaille" how to vote.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13879849]

>>13879628
I imagine they could agree, or get a series of communities to agree to an educational body of some sort, where the community elects a member to help design, direct, manage this school board.
But how is that a state? It’s a bunch of communities agreeing to a school board.

[Anonymous No.13879854]

>>13879823
It definitely is now. In the last 30 years the Democratic have shifted towards cornering the market on white urban professionals.
But I’d argue this doesn’t mean they have better politics.

[Anonymous No.13879863]

>>13879842
How is anti-democractic not anti liberal? Isn’t an elitist “epistocracy” inherently contrary to liberalism?

[Anonymous No.13879890]

>>13877882
Imagine being such a pretentious faggot that you own a damascus steel straight razor.

[Anonymous No.13879922]

>>13879863
Pick up a history book, retard