|
Disinterested posted:In this theory, you don't get ownership of land by pure virtue of mixing labour with it - that is conditional upon the land being unowned. The 'labour mixing' theory is supposed to be a historical image of how property came into being, not a program for adverse possession. That's one reason why it was important to declare certain lands terra nullius (though expropriation of native land in any event did not occur according to a Lockean homesteading doctrine). Naturally land ownership has to have some sort of paper record associated with it which is why libertarians are always like "well of course if my house was on native american land I would be happy to pay reparations to the local native american tribe, so long as a living descendant has proof that their ancestor owned the land" Disinterested posted:Regarding slavery in general, libertarians are typically opposed to it on theoretical grounds but inconsistently from thinker to thinker, place to place, and movement to movement. I was going to bring this up as well, there have been different libertarian posters in this very thread who have taken up hard opposition to slavery (marking it as a very specific exception to the "you can make a contract for anything" rules) while one guy took the rational approach that slaves were never really people in the first place
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:23 |
|
QuarkJets posted:I was going to bring this up as well, there have been different libertarian posters in this very thread who have taken up hard opposition to slavery (marking it as a very specific exception to the "you can make a contract for anything" rules) while one guy took the rational approach that slaves were never really people in the first place That's the other trapdoor under the logic, to assert that x is not a person and therefore not subject to the same rights.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
White Coke posted:So what's the Libertarian position regarded slaves and ownership of land by mixing your labor with it? I know that they'll try and justify why the descendants of slaves don't have any claim to property, but I don't know how. Our resident libertarian interlocutor / punching bag felt that slavery was wrong, and that the descendants of slaves are absolutely entitled to a piece of the land their ancestors were forced to work. That is, of course, only applies to parts of the specific plantations their specific ancestors worked, and these claims would each need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt on a case by case basis. But hey, once you've worked your way through your dozens of cases against the dozens of plantations your ancestors worked on, using all the documentation that totally exists to prove your argument, and once the plantations have been decided among all of the descendants of their victims, you'll have plenty of tiny subplots of worn out farmland spread across a dozen states! That is, of course, provided your case concluded before the case the Native American tribes that were forced from the land in the first place brought. Then the perpetrators' descendants wouldn't even own the land, and you'd have no case against the new owners, since they did nothing to you. Disinterested posted:That's the other trapdoor under the logic, to assert that x is not a person and therefore not subject to the same rights. No, see, they just weren't using it productively. Gotta have cotton farms and white
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That's the other trapdoor under the logic, to assert that x is not a person and therefore not subject to the same rights. That's the Hoppe approach right, where engaging in certain categories of crimethink erase your human rights and turn you into a free good which any citizen can convert into property. Crimethink includes: Marxism, communism, democracy, liberalism, homosexuality, miscegenation, racial integration, non-Christian religions, non-European languages, all other cultures besides mine
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:37
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's the Hoppe approach right, where engaging in certain categories of crimethink erase your human rights and turn you into a free good which any citizen can convert into property. There are definitely more garbage Libertarians who think enemies of the free society can be gas chambered at will, but I can't recall if Hoppe is one. It's definitely an attitude you'll find amongst libertarians on the more insane parts of the internet.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
IIRC jrod would argue that productivity was a necessary requirement in determining whether a piece of land could be homesteaded, which i assume is how some libertarians argue that native americans aren't owned any reparations of any sort
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:58
|
|
QuarkJets posted:IIRC jrod would argue that productivity was a necessary requirement in determining whether a piece of land could be homesteaded, which i assume is how some libertarians argue that native americans aren't owned any reparations of any sort They can simply assert that Native Americans who didn't practice settled agriculture weren't owners at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:IIRC jrod would argue that productivity was a necessary requirement in determining whether a piece of land could be homesteaded, which i assume is how some libertarians argue that native americans aren't owned any reparations of any sort Yea I questioned him specifically on this point and his reply was a mix of "they didn't work the land, not really" and "they would have to have proof that they owned the land."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea I questioned him specifically on this point and his reply was a mix of "they didn't work the land, not really" and "they would have to have proof that they owned the land." "Proof" of course means "in writing," and no treaties don't count, those are statist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There are definitely more garbage Libertarians who think enemies of the free society can be gas chambered at will, but I can't recall if Hoppe is one. It's definitely an attitude you'll find amongst libertarians on the more insane parts of the internet. Hoppe's Covenant Communities bullshit contains all sorts of language about how there can be no tolerance of philosophies and behaviors that are antithetical to the community itself, and what should happen to anyone practicing them, all of which is clearly window-dressing for "shoot the bastards." Disinterested posted:They can simply assert that Native Americans who didn't practice settled agriculture weren't owners at all. More interesting* is the case of those Native Americans who did practice settled agriculture, who's expropriation is usually seen by libertarians as an excuse to blame the Evil State for something while simultaneously coming up with any number of reasons why, say, the Cherokee have no claim on their former lands in Georgia. *In the usual sense of morbid curiosity. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
I tried asking jrodbot about these questions this morning. https://twitter.com/JRodimus_Prime/status/876078686113607680 and quote:We feel we need to build upon and advance beyond the concepts of individual liberty, sound money, property rights above the survival of the reason the libertarian understanding of private property is better taken care of environmentally than public land, where there is actionable scientific proof that changes in behavior today can greatly reduce human suffering will result from civilized behavior and exercise more control over the scarce resource than you. Once property is only one example. The more regulations we pass, and the Lockean theory of natural events could reduce the numbers of human interactions must necessarily commit aggression. were the results.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I was going to bring this up as well, there have been different libertarian posters in this very thread who have taken up hard opposition to slavery (marking it as a very specific exception to the "you can make a contract for anything" rules) while one guy took the rational approach that slaves were never really people in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Jrod was against slavery but thought it was wrong to fight a war to abolish it. He also believed that Qatar, a literal slave state, were freer than Sweden. And that racial profiling in law enforcement just made sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:We feel we need to build upon and advance beyond the concepts of individual liberty, sound money, property rights above the survival of the reason the libertarian understanding of private property is better taken care of environmentally than public land, where there is actionable scientific proof that changes in behavior today can greatly reduce human suffering will result from civilized behavior and exercise more control over the scarce resource than you. Once property is only one example. The more regulations we pass, and the Lockean theory of natural events could reduce the numbers of human interactions must necessarily commit aggression. the bot is definitely passing the Libertarian Turing Test
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
divabot posted:the bot is definitely passing the Libertarian Turing Test Which is more than Jrod ever did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Give libertarians some credit; they mostly wouldn't make those grammar errors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Give libertarians some credit; they mostly wouldn't make those grammar errors. Because they would make other?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
I played with programming in some better grammar. https://twitter.com/JRodimus_Prime/status/876114215622332416 https://twitter.com/JRodimus_Prime/status/876114561421725698
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Because they would make other? You and I both know a libertarian knows how to write a run-on sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I played with programming in some better grammar. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Jrod was against slavery but thought it was wrong to fight a war to abolish it. He also believed that Qatar, a literal slave state, were freer than Sweden. And that calling Qatar a slave state was a slap in the face to the real victims of slavery. Such as the upper-class American taxpayer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:You and I both know a libertarian knows how to write a run-on sentence. But is there a market for them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And that calling Qatar a slave state was a slap in the face to the real victims of slavery. The absolute best part of that was watching him try desperately, and fail horribly, to wall of text himself out of that one. Then we all pointed out that where he got the information was a rich person shill that was funded by rich people; when you look at the actual criteria it was 100% "here is a bunch of bullshit we made up. Now, the best nations are the ones with the fewest regulation, lots of poverty, and possibly slavery."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Holy loving poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
The fact that this is grammatically and syntactically accurate as well as probably 100% true is wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Logical Man: Taxation is slavery, and thus the worst thing ever. Crowd: hmm yes alright, that's a really good point Logical Man: Actual slavery is not taxation, which means it is not slavery. Crowd: cogent and thoughtful, wow, keep going Logical Man: Ergo actual slavery is not all that bad!!! Furthermore, Crowd goes wild  
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Saw this tweet, thought of this thread: https://twitter.com/socketquest/status/876365691183661057
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Saw this tweet, thought of this thread: Jrod's clearly the third guy in line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And that calling Qatar a slave state was a slap in the face to the real victims of slavery. Do you have a link I want to read this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Do you have a link I want to read this. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3745862&pagenumber=12&perpage=40#post451470608
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Jrod's clearly the third guy in line. He isn't nearly handsome enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
theshim posted:I had to dig for a while, but I found it! It was in one of the other Jrod threads. This whole thread is worth reading, too, but the post where he brings up the Cato study is here:  all those guys who perma-toxxed for hilldogg.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Everytime I see this thread pop up I have a brief moment of hope that perhaps the prodigal son has returned. Such a pity. In his honor, I present you vintage Jrodefeld, circa 2011.The 250gb data cap is ruining my family. It HAS to go. posted:Hello, He literally does it to comcast customer service. I'm dying. Edit: gently caress, I forgot the title. Caros fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
It just. Keeps. Going.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Caros posted:Everytime I see this thread pop up I have a brief moment of hope that perhaps the prodigal son has returned. Such a pity. In his honor, I present you vintage Jrodefeld, circa 2011. In his defense, a 250GB cap is bullshit. I have a 350gb cap, and that's because I have a BFE lovely cable service (Antietam) as the local monopoly. There's a reason Comcast decided to just create a new name for itself, since a new brand would have zero goodwill, but also hopefully no negative association.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:In his defense, a 250GB cap is bullshit. I have a 350gb cap, and that's because I have a BFE lovely cable service (Antietam) as the local monopoly. There's a reason Comcast decided to just create a new name for itself, since a new brand would have zero goodwill, but also hopefully no negative association. He was lying about not pirating things, and in fact made his living by doing just that.  Who What Now posted:It just. Keeps. Going. Jrod is fundamentally incapable of communicating in a clear and concise manner, possibly due to an early-life brain injury (other than being a libertarian, that is).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:He was lying about not pirating things, and in fact made his living by doing just that. Wait, what? So a libertarian who doesn't respect other people's property rights? Are we sure that he wasn't just a long form troll like TriangularTobelerone or that one guy who just used to post Fox News talking points? This has to be a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
theshim posted:I had to dig for a while, but I found it! It was in one of the other Jrod threads. This whole thread is worth reading, too, but the post where he brings up the Cato study is here: Since things are very quiet in this thread, I vote that we break down his entire ocean of verbal effluvia and simultaneously debunk it while mocking everything about JRod, including his fruit-loving habits, while secretly wishing he was still posting here so that we could mock him to his face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Wait, what? So a libertarian who doesn't respect other people's property rights? Are we sure that he wasn't just a long form troll like TriangularTobelerone or that one guy who just used to post Fox News talking points? This has to be a joke. Technically it wasn't illegal because the movies weren't trademarked in America, they were pirated from Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:Wait, what? So a libertarian who doesn't respect other people's property rights? Are we sure that he wasn't just a long form troll like TriangularTobelerone or that one guy who just used to post Fox News talking points? This has to be a joke. He had all sorts of unsurprisingly long winded and convoluted explanations as to why what he was doing didn't really violate anyone else's property rights, which ultimately boiled down to "it'd cost me more and/or be inconvenient to not pirate them."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:52
|
|