no surprise here

[AynMisesLibertarian]

I've just discovered: the smartest man ever (IQ 200!!) was a libertarian

William James Sidis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(He later developed his own quasi-libertarian philosophy based on individual rights and "the American social continuity").

I can hear you : "hurr durr libertard no smart no possible "

[chunksmediocrites]

I've just discovered: the smartest man ever (IQ 200!!) was a socialist

William James Sidis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sidis stated that he had been a conscientious objector of the World War I draft, and a socialist.

I can hear me : "Selective editing and implied conclusions about politics based on one individual indicates no clear conclusion nor realistic statistical support for the superiority or lack thereof of a particular political theory! "

[Stormlight]

No surprise here.

[Qingdai]

Quasi. I don't recall that band.

[LadyShea]

But AML, he didn't use his vast smarts to make tons of money, doesn't that make him useless and worthless in your book?

[Kael]

Well, there's libertarians, and then there's libertards...

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

I've just discovered: the smartest man ever (IQ 200!!) was a socialist

William James Sidis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

began as a socialist. he just got wiser. happens with age.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by ITSOZAZ

began as a socialist. he just got richer. happens with age.

[Kyuss Apollo]

Maybe now he can afford to pay his child support.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

I've just discovered:

Hah. What do you know?

AynMisesPlagiarian actually provided a source instead of just stealing text without attribution.

[seebs]

IQ 200 doesn't mean anything -- there's not really any such thing on the standardized tests, because it's outside the measurable range.

Anyone who claims to have a meaningful IQ over 170 is lying or confused. Past that all you get is "gosh, Vern, there sure is a lot of standard deviations there".

FWIW, I'm pretty sympathetic to a lot of libertarian political views, but I also recognize that the party has been taken over by nutjobs like the OP. The basic theory of getting the government out of a lot of stuff appeals to me. It's just that I'd be happy with, say, dropping all the crap like laws on who you can have sex with, but the lolbertarians seem to be entirely focused on how they can get out of feeding the poor.

[Vivisectus]

So what law on who you can have sex with are you objecting to at the moment?

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So what law on who you can have sex with are you objecting to at the moment?

Right now, I object to the general category of laws that, for instance, restrict adults from entering into marriages. It's been what, ten or twenty years at most since we got rid of the last anti-miscegenation laws or legal bans on gay sex? I think MN still has a law against oral sex (not enforced, I'd guess).

But there's plenty of other laws that are not really useful. In my home town, if you build a house, the front of the house must be a distance from the street that is within five feet of the average distance from the street of other houses on that block, or something to that effect. We've been engaged in a dispute with the planning commission for a couple of months now over whether we're allowed to build a greenhouse, because the code is huge, complicated, full of special redefinitions of words like "height"... and doesn't actually cover this kind of building at all.

In general, I think a whole lot of laws could be dropped, and the only people who would be in any way worse off would be the people whose job is enforcing those laws.

On the other hand, I have no objection to the basic idea of things like the FDA, though I think they would do a better job if they weren't under strict orders to pretend that all the Schedule 1 drugs are bad.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=seebs;1014549]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So what law on who you can have sex with are you objecting to at the moment?

Right now, I object to the general category of laws that, for instance, restrict adults from entering into marriages. It's been what, ten or twenty years at most since we got rid of the last anti-miscegenation laws or legal bans on gay sex? I think MN still has a law against oral sex (not enforced, I'd guess).

Ah good! You had me worried there for a second Yeah those are not just impossible to defend in any ethical way, they are also against what the majority of people these days believe! Why the flying hell do they still exist?

But there's plenty of other laws that are not really useful. In my home town, if you build a house, the front of the house must be a distance from the street that is within five feet of the average distance from the street of other houses on that block, or something to that effect. We've been engaged in a dispute with the planning commission for a couple of months now over whether we're allowed to build a greenhouse, because the code is huge, complicated, full of special redefinitions of words like "height"... and doesn't actually cover this kind of building at all.

I am not against those laws in principle. I go agree that they tend to be cumbrous, out of date and restrictive, but take one look at developments here in Ireland and you will see that we should have sensible ones... like laws requiring developers to add the odd playground or green space in every now and then.

In general, I think a whole lot of laws could be dropped, and the only people who would be in any way worse off would be the people whose job is enforcing those laws.

I agree there are such laws, and no shortage of them. But is it a principle that laws such as these are bad, or is it merely that we should make sure the laws are better, more realistic, and reflecting our best interests? Libertarianism says they are bad per se. I am not so sure.

[seebs]

I would argue that any law which is not specifically productive and useful is harmful, because it imposes significant social costs. Basically, I think laws need justifications. A law mandating the provision of some sort of green space? Justifiable. Laws outlining the allowable heights and locations of colored regions on the walls of buildings (say, the local Target has a red band around it for branding)? Ridiculous. Stick to health and safety, plx.

The difference between my views on a lot of these issues and those of many "libertarians" is that I think the "unhide hidden costs" part of the government's role should be taken seriously and extend to things like the long-term social harms done by destructive or short-sighted actions. I don't think it's sufficient to say that people selling poisonous stuff as medicine will eventually run out of customers; customers cannot, in general, be qualified to make reasonably informed decisions.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

cumbrous

Okay I'm swooning a little bit. I have never seen anyone use this word. It's a beauty!

[Thanks] for the cumbrous.