The Case Against RationalWiki

[Travis Retriever]

My apologies in advance if any of the following articles violate any of this forum's rules, but this first one was really the last straw for me:  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo
As someone's who's an atheist, a skeptic and a soon-to-be engineer that was really painful to read.
At the time I checked, they didn't have an article on either "Engineering" or just "Engineers".

These two were just painful:  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Libertarianism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Libertarianism

And of course:  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Free_market
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gold_standard_%28economics%29

Really, that entire site even on their non-anti-libertarian articles seems to just be one huge jerk-off session.  It's like if Thunderf00t and the founder of Encyclopedia Dramatica (who happens to be female) had a baby, and got him on the internet.

[MrBogosity]

While those articles absolutely would be a violation of this forum's rules against bigotry if they were posted here, referencing them for the purpose of discussion and criticism is quite cool.

[VectorM]

Is this a less vulgar version of Encyclopedia Dramatica, or what? Because that' exactly what it looks like. Hell, ED sites more sources for their claims than these people.

This is "Leftopedia" disguised with a clever name.

[Gumba Masta]

Yeah, but last I checked ED doesn't pretend to be something else than a "jerk-off" session.

[Travis Retriever]

@Shane:  OK, that's good to know.

@VectorM:  My thoughts, exactly.

@Gumba Masta:  Agreed.

Also, since VectorM mentioned it, there is a site called, "Liberapedia", and surprise, one of the first articles on their front page was the one on Libertarianism:
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarianism
Some highlights:  "Pitfalls of Libertarianism"
Oh, this should be good. ^^

"Libertarians tend to be supporters of unchecked corporate power, depending on just how deep into it they are. That means bosses should be able to force whatever they like onto their workers and those who buy their products. If workers are too weak to fight back against a bullying boss that's just too bad."
They do realize that corporations, by definition, are government created entities and other such things, like--Immunity, unlimited debt shield--that would not exist in a free market?  Or the fact that they could just quit and find another job with a boss that isn't such an a-hole?  Hell, or even start their own business, if it weren't for government barriers to entry.  They might argue that that is wrong/too much/etc, yet in my experience, I find liberals have no issues throwing love-it-or-leave-it arguments (Billburns2 anyone?), so there.

"It’s great for the 1% of the population that can get into the upper level jobs probably because mommy daddy were rich and paid them through school. Think of it as a lose-win situation where a few win and many lose."
I wonder how this guy accounts for the quadrupling of real wages during the USA's industrial revolution, along with the greatest improvements in the standard of living of the poor any time before or since?  Well, at least according to the census, but that must be an anti-government conspiracy, amirite?

"Libertarians are opposed to Universal Health Care because it is more ethical to allow wealth to determine who lives or dies."
As opposed to having that decision being made by our glorious, honorable and infallible leaders?
Seriously, I wonder how he explains the mutual aid societies present before government intervention? You know, the ones where a year's care cost only a day's wages?

[MrBogosity]

I can't believe you missed this, surhot:

That means bosses should be able to force whatever they like onto their workers and those who buy their products.

No, no force is allowed here. They have to work with their workers and customers on a purely voluntary basis.

[Travis Retriever]

I can't believe you missed this, surhot:

No, no force is allowed here. They have to work with their workers and customers on a purely voluntary basis.

I'm surprised I did too.  Well rather I did notice it, but it was overshadowed by this nonsense about libertarianism in the general overview of beliefs section:
"Opposition to Coercive Force (defined their way)18"
First off, a dead citation link:  VERY unprofessional.
Second, I noticed this bit because I get this "well, that's just how you define force" crap from anarcho-communists almost nonstop.

[MrBogosity]

Definition #4 from Wiktionary: "(uncountable) The ability to attack, control, or constrain."

Works for me!

[Gumba Masta]

I think this thread needs some Liberty Bells.

[bp_28]

RationalWiki, "Social Darwinism":
Social Darwinists took the biological ideas of Charles Darwin (and often mixed them with Lamarck and Malthus) and attempted to apply them to the social sciences. They were especially interested in applying the idea of "the survival of the fittest" in a social context, as this would excuse their existing ideas of racism, colonialism, and unfettered capitalism (for them, at least). It was also used as a tool to argue that governments should not interfere in human competition (as it existed at the time) in any way; and that the government should take no interest in, for example, regulating the economy, reducing poverty or introducing socialized medicine. In other words have a laissez-faire policy.

Refuted by Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market:
"The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the "jungle" society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter's property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the divi- sion of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the "survival of the fittest" to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The "fit" in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The "fit" on the market are those most adept in the service of soci- ety. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that can- not exist in the jungle" (Rothbard 1325)

[Travis Retriever]

RationalWiki, "Social Darwinism":
Social Darwinists took the biological ideas of Charles Darwin (and often mixed them with Lamarck and Malthus) and attempted to apply them to the social sciences. They were especially interested in applying the idea of "the survival of the fittest" in a social context, as this would excuse their existing ideas of racism, colonialism, and unfettered capitalism (for them, at least). It was also used as a tool to argue that governments should not interfere in human competition (as it existed at the time) in any way; and that the government should take no interest in, for example, regulating the economy, reducing poverty or introducing socialized medicine. In other words have a laissez-faire policy.

Refuted by Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market:
"The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the "jungle" society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter's property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the divi- sion of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the "survival of the fittest" to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The "fit" in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The "fit" on the market are those most adept in the service of soci- ety. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that can- not exist in the jungle" (Rothbard 1325)

So you're the one who reminded Shane and us of that quote!  Thanks. You, good sir, just earned your 3rd cluon. n.n