/liberty/ - Liberty

>>78235

>free speech means I have the right to force you to give me a platform

>>78237

aka baking the cake

>>78237

found the redditor

>>78238

>the right to communicate your thoughts, ideas and beliefs that can have meaningful change on the world and society, on centralized monopolistic platforms tied to the overwhelming majority of listeners, social communication, open minded independents friendly to fringe positions and employment/sociopolitical organizations

vs

>forcing one of hundreds of possible bakeries to make you an aids cake by gunpoint

Gee, really is hard to take someone with a cock in his mouth seriously

austrian economics debunked (redpill overdose)

TRIGGER WARNING: FACTS AHEAD!!

tl;dr

>gold standard is unstable and not a viable currency, susceptible to fraud and dependent upon mining

>they are openly anti-scientific, rely on "praxeology", they are philosopher at best

>dumb ideology funded by koch brothers think tanks (CATO) to convince ignorant armchair economists

>every prediction they had is proven wrong

>they business cycle theory is wrong

>they don't use scientific method, no maths, no statistics, nothing, just speculation

>only used as political rhetoric by ron paul to rile up his gadsen-flag hillbilly voterbase

>all of peter schiff's predictions are wrong, he has been preaching doomsday for decades

>mainstream economics agrees with less than half of their policy

>literally no respects austrian economists today, abandoned as early as 1950's

>only good thing to come out of it was Hayek, who wasn't even Austrian since he rejects praxeology. He contributed to price theory, and added to the socialist calculation problem. Also his philosophy is superior and way more nuanced compared to mises/rothbard.

top global econ journals, ZERO positive austrian results, all negative! outdated! wrong! pseudoscience!

https://academic.oup.com/qje/search-results?page=1&q=austrian&fl_SiteID=5504&allJournals=1&SearchSourceType=1

https://academic.oup.com/restud/search-results?page=1&q=austrian%20economics&fl_SiteID=5508&allJournals=1&SearchSourceType=1

https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/mac/search-results?within%5Btitle%5D=on&within%5Babstract%5D=on&within%5Bauthor%5D=on&within%5BjelCode%5D=0&journal=6&q=austrian+economics

https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/jep/search-results?within%5Btitle%5D=on&within%5Babstract%5D=on&within%5Bauthor%5D=on&journal=3&q=austrian+economics

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

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

ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_neoclassical_synthesis

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220480309595230

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.nl/2017/04/economics-is-inexact-science.html

https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/39717/Master-Thesis-Nicolas-Bernerman.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1530995

https://recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com/top-ten-austrian-economic-lies-and-mistakes/

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/top-ten-lies-and-mistakes-of-austrian-economics/

https://hallingblog.com/2015/09/08/praxeology-an-intellectual-train-wreck/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/search?q=austrian&restrict_sr=on

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138469

http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/marketfailures.html

https://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4545/introductory/marketfailures.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1py0a8/eli5why_is_the_gold_standard_bad_feel_free_to/

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/eej.2012.32

you are getting (((nosed))) lolberts

https://www.economist.com/news/business/21711504-his-theory-management-inspired-austrian-school-economic-thought-worked-wonders

want to learn REAL economics? no problem, open source PDF book

https://openstax.org/subjects/

Blogs (neurtal-center right)

http://marginalrevolution.com/

https://uneasymoney.com/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/blogs

http://econlog.econlib.org/

>>78241

>the right to communicate

It ends where your property does. If you consider those popular outlets to be "public" then it means nobody owns them and nobody has a right to use them. However, you're probably not whining over NBC or BBC refusing to air your message to end the State. More than likely it's Facebook or You Tube. None of those are public. Or is it that you should be allowed only because they're big enough to matter? Would someone's small private paper of a hundred subscribers also be obliged to print your article? Why then apply that reasoning only to the media? Why not just end private property all together?

>>forcing one of hundreds of possible bakeries to make you an aids cake by gunpoint

Did you get the wrong flag again? Do natural rights suddenly stop applying to individuals because you don't find them useful to yourself at that time? When do you flip the on/off switch so we all know to watch out and ignore yours?

>Cuck

Anyone who isn't far-right

>Bigot/Xist/Xphobe

Anyone who isn't far-left

>Statist

Anyone who isn't a lockstep ancap

>Intersectional Feminism

Most self-proclaimed feminists are shit-tier, but this is a guarantee for cancer.

>Freeze Peach

>Assault Weapon

>Patriarchy

>meritocracy

Top 10 leftists words.

>>78362

How is meritocracy leftist?

>>78482

Just because you do well does not mean you have a right to anyone elses property

>>78484

Never knew it entailed that. I was under the impression with meritocracy was that you keep what you earn or something.

>>78485

Meritocracy means that the "best"/"most talented" should govern. It's like technocracy but even more retarded.

>>78487

I always find it funny how leftists use the argument that a private company can censor if it wants yet their own ideology is supposed to be against that thing in general.

>>78533

it's meant to point out to lolberg youtubers that they're getting fucked by their own philosophy and resolve to grasping at straws by shouting "corporatism!"

It's not actually validating corporations or capitalism, you are the butt of the joke. I guess you could compare it to how conservatives criticized OWS because the protestors wore clothes…. that were made by corporations! Leftism btfo'd!

Oh, and speaking of - "corporatism" and "" crony" capitalism", they don't make me angry but it's sure tiring to hear them over and over.

>>78543

>it's meant to point out to lolberg youtubers that they're getting fucked by their own philosophy

But they're not. Pointing out that something isn't a feature of the free market but of a market distorted by government forces is a valid argument. There's ways to refute it, but shouting "checkmate!" isn't one. You could, for example, explain that the feature in question, say wealth disparity, can just as well happen in a free market, even if it currently doesn't. I can't speak for all others, but I would find such an argument valid in principle.

>>78576

>basic human right

>x is a ponzi scheme

why do these anger you? misuse?

>>78579

"Basic human right" usually means "basic human right to steal from others property".

>>78576

>corporations aren't people

But corporations literally aren't people, and they should not be legally considered such.

>"But in the REAL world.."

>"Well you weren't alive when X happened" usually followed up by "but I was, therefore I can't be wrong"

>"If WE didn't commit acts of destruction, THEY would!"

>"Well we can agree to disagree/well that's just your opinion"

<after a study/statistic is brought up

>But we're HATED by the rest of the world, so we have to keep doing X

<which is one of the reasons we're hated in the first place

Really the one that gets me the most isn't really a phrase so much as an attitude. I've got coworkers who won't shut the fuck up about Trump and his 12D chess, and will openly start praising him in polite company where we're talking about cars, or guns, or other non-political shit, and they will intentionally bring him up repeatedly after all social cues have suggested no one gives a fuck/wants to talk about politics, but they get butthurt and screech (and I do mean screech) if you so much as pull up a factoid suggesting they're full of shit. I've got a number of coworkers who will go off on tangents about politics, and nine times out of ten I ignore them on break/lunch, so they start getting louder and louder and looking at me, and they'll end up saying something completely bum fucking retarded which you'll point out in a single sentence response only to watch their faves scrunch up in anger/watch them become fucking indignant/take up a hostile tone because you dared to question the all mighty words spewing from that second asshole they call a mouth. Usually the first thing out of their mouth is "well I didn't want your opinion" when they butted into your conversation and were intentionally trying to make eye contact with you for several minutes while going on one of their rants, and they're always the fucking coworkers who are 40+ and raised on fucking gibs.

>>78543

Really. From what I've seen they use it as an excuse to justify their political opponents being deplatformed. That and they'd probably start bitching once the same apparatus they endorse turns on them like it did in the Bush era. It's like a merry go round and everyone has short term amnesia for some reason.

>>78579

I guess people usually say social security is a ponzi scheme but I don't know why libertarians would be upset about that since it's true.

>>78593

Mine is the reverse when I was in college. Everyone kept bitching about him when he got elected even the teachers when Trump had nothing to do with the subjects they're teaching. The only relevant time is when he visited our state and traffic got jammed as a result. I don't hate them but it got annoying over time. Thankfully, I graduated already.

>>78622

SS isn't a ponzi scheme, because ponzi schemes are voluntary.

>>78589

Like taxes and welfare and shit?

>>78674

Taxes, and welfare, AKA stealing to give free shit to other people.

>>78589

>positive rights