Three questions that will destroy any argument with the Left
- Where is the pee stored?
- What hour does the narwhal bacon?
- What number am I thinking of right now?
Look out yall, this is scary stuff 👀
spoiler
I did not watch this video 💅
Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used: (1) the perversity thesis, whereby any action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order is alleged to result in the exact opposite of what was intended; (2) the futility thesis, which predicts that attempts at social transformation will produce no effects whatever—will simply be incapable of making a dent in the status quo; (3) the jeopardy thesis, holding that the cost of the proposed reform is unacceptable because it will endanger previous hard-won accomplishments.
These reactionary and libertarian nerds think they're so clever with arguments that boil down to "no no you can't do that good thing because if you do that then X will happen", where X is a completely unsupported supposition they treat at absolute scientific fact.
Look, my fantasy world wins over your material reality, mmmkay?
Checkmate liberals. :bateman-ontological:
All three of the "thesis" (bullshit unproven and impossible to demonstrate ideas) boil down to "we've tried improving society somewhat and it didn't create a utopia, ergo communism bad"
What is it? Will proposed changes do nothing or the opposite of what's intended? The first two are literally contradictory lmao.
I'm gonna take my best guess :akkommunism:
1 how u going to pay for that
2 do u think u deserve??
3 something about capital flight
The "compared to what" argument is such frustrating, specious, horseshit. They're argument is essentially that because only one reality can actually exist at a time, then it must be the best reality because there's nothing else to compare it to. The reality where we didn't let companies sack other countries doesn't exist, so we can't point to a reality where that didn't happen. Therefore we can't really say that reality would have been better, we can only go by the one that exists. Then they can make up whatever they want about the non-existent reality because it's not real. Yeah if we didn't do that then the indigenous people wouldn't have gotten a good work ethic and they would have self-destructed. Yep, that's what would have happened so it's good that we did imperialism actually. It saved them from themselves. Even though we just established that you can't use counterfacutals in historical analysis, we suddenly can when it comes to dispelling socialism. It's almost like the entire argument is a tautology that venerates capitalism.
also fuck thomas sowell lol fucking uncle tom ass dork
it's fucked up that he really is one of the smartest conservatives out there, and he's still a total dumbass
What he preaches is hardly that much different from mainstream conservative economics. It's just dressed up as "subversive" [against the "Left" Establishment] and "overlooked common sense".
oh man im so destroyed, at what cost?!?! damn i never thought of how much money id have to reappropriate from the rich, jeez, never crossed my mind. destroyed
Let me guess, he's recycling the same tired old bullshit that was debunked in 2000BC like a broken record player running the same hits over and over again until the end of time.
One question to destroy any argument with Thomas Sowell:
- Is your refrigerator running?
But how are we gonna pay for that?
With blood like everything else
