|
absolem posted:The non-aggression principle and property rights, etc. can be proved a priori. [citation needed]
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
goatse.cx posted:Redistribution under the dictatorship of the proletariat would not be a 'reparation' from whites to blacks though, but the equal ownership to means of production by workers of all colors. Coates seems to make a point emphasizing that reparation being whites paying recompense for the wrong they committed against blacks. Well, I disagree with that, because a lot of white people are going to see that as punishment for something that they can't understand having anything to do with, setting off more racial resentment, and continuing the cycle. And, in any case, it shouldn't be about race, it's about class. It wasn't just your average white shithead who owned slaves, it was the super-rich who still enslave the poor in lovely jobs with no benefits. I'm not interested in continuing that, personally.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Walking? On other people's private property and private roads? I can't believe you're advising people to initiate force and convert their neighbor's property, you monster. good point, but you could try a payday loan, or just cry. Raskolnikov38 posted:I'll assume that despite using "to keep them from doing so" you're not actually arguing for preemptive 'coercion' since that allows me to go "QED: regulations/society/government" but rather for an in response to something happening system. I didn't mean preemptively, thanks. That's an interesting question, if a person was being paid to enslave people or something similar, I suppose both the person doing the enslaving and the person who contracted the employee (and so on until you hit the source of the money or something) would be acting immorally (because they contracted it, not just because they were benefitting). Thanks for the tip, its my friends name, and he doesnt come up from a google search for it (and also I've forgot my pastebin credentials, so)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
So if you're only watching a rape occur...
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
absolem posted:Helping people is only a good idea insofar as it benefits you. I volunteer because it makes me feel good, it looks good to other people, and in some instances lifting other people up improves my economic situation. I disagree with the notion that it's only good if its a benefit to oneself. Hell, I'd bet you've helped people directly and you don't really care about how it made them or you feel. With respect, you could probably do yourself a favor by stepping back and really give an honest thought about how people have helped you in your life, even with mundane things. Did they get any emotional income out of it? Does it matter? Personally, I'm intrigued by the idea that people don't have to help others. It seems like everyone's civic responsibility to perpetuate the society that has given to them. You talk about your own survival like it's only up to you. You'd be nothing without people, don't you think?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
absolem posted:if a person was being paid to enslave people or something similar, I suppose both the person doing the enslaving and the person who contracted the employee (and so on until you hit the source of the money or something) would be acting immorally
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:Well, I disagree with that, because a lot of white people are going to see that as punishment for something that they can't understand having anything to do with, setting off more racial resentment, and continuing the cycle. And, in any case, it shouldn't be about race, it's about class. It wasn't just your average white shithead who owned slaves, it was the super-rich who still enslave the poor in lovely jobs with no benefits. Yes, it's a political non-starter, but as others have mentioned, it can't just be about class... Ta-Nehisi Coates posted:And just as black families of all incomes remain handicapped by a lack of wealth, so too do they remain handicapped by their restricted choice of neighborhood. Black people with upper-middle-class incomes do not generally live in upper-middle-class neighborhoods. Sharkey’s research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000. “Blacks and whites inhabit such different neighborhoods,” Sharkey writes, “that it is not possible to compare the economic outcomes of black and white children.”
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:[citation needed] true, look at the pastebin I posted Mo_Steel posted:Seeing as there are multiple religions professing to have a perfect benchmark and many interpretations therein, how is it not subjective to claim Jesus is the perfect benchmark instead of Buddhism? It's fine and well to claim a perfect benchmark but the next step is to prove it, and doing that requires looking at it through our subjective worldviews to decide which one of the perfect ones is really actually perfect. that's not a bad idea, do we have anything like that/where should it go? In D&D still? I;d rather it be a more general discussion of morals or whatever than just mine, and from what I've seen OPs here tend to be pretty in depth so Im not sure If Id be comfortable writing it. What do you think? Putin It In Mah rear end posted:Damnit. All I needed was "Monopoly on the use of lethal force" heh
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
What if you don't contract, say, a hitman, but you know he plans on killing people that are preventing you from advancing, so you make sure to provide him with the material he needs to continue evading capture and not getting caught. You're not making him kill anyone. You're not even encouraging it. Are you acting immorally from simply supporting the existence of a situation that benefits you? Or, more historically: You don't own slaves, but you fight against slavery becoming illegal because you benefit from living in an area where slavery exists. Is this immoral?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
absolem posted:good point, but you could try a payday loan, or just cry. Oh well okay, if the moral free market response to employers initiating force against their workers to break strikes is to tell workers to move or suck it up, then I guess any Job Creator who has a problem with progressive taxation, reparations, or employment laws can move somewhere else or just cry. Hey, they're also free to hire an Army bigger than the US Government's to defend themselves from coercion, if they can't afford that then tough titties, they should work harder or move away.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
According to that NPR story about who hasn't read the Coates article:quote:In Slate, Ben Mathis-Lilley writes that "The piece persuasively (and seemingly effortlessly) turns the issue of race in America into a pressing discussion about work, wealth, and theft rather than an unresolvable grudge-match about bygone guilt."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
I still want to know if Obama has to pay reparations...
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:You just suppose that a slaver would be acting immortally? What a useless post that serves only to add volume to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:Well, I disagree with that, because a lot of white people are going to see that as punishment for something that they can't understand having anything to do with, setting off more racial resentment, and continuing the cycle. And, in any case, it shouldn't be about race, it's about class. It wasn't just your average white shithead who owned slaves, it was the super-rich who still enslave the poor in lovely jobs with no benefits. 1/4th of the south's population employed slaves, and not owning slaves did not mean you did not work with slaves as overseers or slave catchers or slave sellers or any of the myriad of positions available in slave society that was Pre-Civil War America. But why are we talking about slavery, TNC spends much of his time discussing the recent abuses endured by American Blacks from the early 20th century up till today with loan officers selling subprime loans to "mud people." And why is it just about class, how can class-based efforts address race-based problems? We have white with criminal records being favored over blacks without criminal records for jobs; blacks making 100k living in neighborhoods that are the equivalent to whites making 30k; blacks being incarcerated at rates that are multitudes higher than the incarceration rates whites suffer from. How can we keep providing examples of black people suffering and people like you continue to crow that it's class holding blacks back, not their race? The blacks who were discriminated against on housing biases in the 50's and 60's and 70's were not necessarily poor blacks, they were hard working members of society who were conned into lovely financial situations because the federal government facilitated predatory housing practices. poo poo, this has happened as recently as 2008 when the recession hit and blacks who had spent the previous 8 years building up their finances, purchasing homes, attempting to create communities, were smacked down hard with foreclosure rates way higher than what whites faced. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 22:38 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Well in politics related news the arrest of Clayton Kelly, connected to illegally filming the wife of a sitting Senator Thad Cochran in her nursing home. The vice chair of the MS Tea Party and various other individuals, so this is looking more and more like a larger conspiracy. http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/22/more-arrests-in-cochran-conspiracy/9440277/ I really hope this sinks the whole drat thing statewide, or at least McDaniel's candidacy.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
SickZip posted:I still want to know if Obama has to pay reparations... He identifies as black so no. If he identified as white then he should feel an immense amount of white guilt and be seized by the desire to pay reparations for half of his ancestry.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Of course he should. The rich should have to pay for the bulk of the reparations. They are the ones with the money after all. Maybe he'll get some back, of course, he deserves his fair share, but I don't think it will be a net positive for him.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Since racism is over, I'm guessing this burning cross in Tennessee was meant as just a friendly welcome for the new bi-racial baby in the neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Of course he should. The rich should have to pay for the bulk of the reparations. They are the ones with the money after all. Maybe he'll get some back, of course, he deserves his fair share, but I don't think it will be a net positive for him. So if I'm a Chinese man who moved to the US 20 years ago and worked my way up to the "rich" class, do I have to pay reparations too?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Since racism is over, I'm guessing this burning cross in Tennessee was meant as just a friendly welcome for the new bi-racial baby in the neighborhood. Well that baby obviously identified as black, if he had racism directed at him.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
If you're not going to read Coates' essay at least read this ffs
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Langosta posted:I disagree with the notion that it's only good if its a benefit to oneself. Hell, I'd bet you've helped people directly and you don't really care about how it made them or you feel. Sure, social cooperation is necessary and good. I mean, a fundamental idea of economics is that all freely made agreements are mutually beneficial, in some fashion. I'm not advocating that you not interact with or help other people just because it doesn't immediately make you better off, I'm just saying that charity is not a universally helpful enterprise. Its pretty well understood that being nice and helping out (small acts of kindness and such) help society run smoothly, and I find that valuable. JT Jag posted:You just suppose that a slaver would be acting immortally? look, I'm pretty darn sure, sorry GlyphGryph posted:What if you don't contract, say, a hitman, but you know he plans on killing people that are preventing you from advancing, so you make sure to provide him with the material he needs to continue evading capture and not getting caught. That's a tough one, though it sounds like some implied contracts are going on there. For the latter (or actually both?), you would be arguing for a practice that cannot be justified and you are therefore wrong, meaning your stance is untenable and immoral
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
absolem posted:true, look at the pastebin I posted Hmm. quote:- Argumentation is a means of conflict resolution. It’s really only here that the question of “justification” That's amazingly dumb. "individuals ought to use violence to resolve (all) conflicts" is a wrong statement, but you can't get from there to NAP. Not all conflicts are equal to each other. It also raises the question: what if I don't argue? Does rejecting the NAP have more merit if I murder anyone who advocates it to me? quote:- Over external resources (we have already determined that exclusive use is inevitable and that violence is Again, does not follow. You haven't stated why any objective claim other than "first person to appropriate a resource" can't be justifiable. I think you've made the assumption that any claim other than one based on appropriation must be subjective, but I don't see how you've come to that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
absolem posted:I didn't mean preemptively, thanks. That's an interesting question, if a person was being paid to enslave people or something similar, I suppose both the person doing the enslaving and the person who contracted the employee (and so on until you hit the source of the money or something) would be acting immorally (because they contracted it, not just because they were benefitting). No problem  .But how would ancap land (or whatever we want to call your hypothetical society/system) punish the slaver and his employer(s)? Mob justice or would a system analogous to today's police (or rather what today's police should be) be put into effect?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Amergin posted:So if I'm a Chinese man who moved to the US 20 years ago and worked my way up to the "rich" class, do I have to pay reparations too? No of course not, it's only moral to tax him to pay for corporate bailouts and endless foreign wars. Just not to invest in education for minorities ever. It would be cruel to direct his taxes to that!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Amergin posted:So if I'm a Chinese man who moved to the US 20 years ago and worked my way up to the "rich" class, do I have to pay reparations too? Are you a Chinese man who moved to the US 20 years ago and worked your way up? No? Shut the gently caress up and start positing real questions rather than attempting to distract from the conversation at hand with your idiotic rumblings. What if all white people everywhere decided to kill themselves, would the world be better? What if libertarians tried to start a moon colony, how long would it take till it failed? What if your brain melted and leaked out of your ears, would you stop poo poo posting? This is a trick question because you don't need a brain to shitpost, as evidenced by you.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:What if all white people everywhere decided to kill themselves, would the world be better? 1. Yea. 2. There's actually a Heinlein book about that. 3. Apparently, brain dead people continue to post unabated.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Are you a Chinese man who moved to the US 20 years ago and worked your way up? No? Shut the gently caress up and start positing real questions rather than attempting to distract from the conversation at hand with your idiotic rumblings. Yes, as soon as they need to agree on which cryptocurrency to adopt, no. Edit: fuuuuck
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Are you a Chinese man who moved to the US 20 years ago and worked your way up? No? Shut the gently caress up and start positing real questions rather than attempting to distract from the conversation at hand with your idiotic rumblings. So if I was a Chinese man who came here 20 years ago you'd put effort into answering my question instead of being so mad? 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an insane crank who wants to be conquered by an aryan king hth Seriously a friend ran into him at a bar in DC and he was literally ranting about all the "swine" in academia who dared oppose him
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:First you need to absolutely have no impulse for introspection, no self awareness whatsoever, and then live a life completely insulated by privilege. This attitude cannot survive contact with hardship. I'm a walking example of this. I was firmly in the same court as absolem until I was subjected to a very real and painful reminder about how inequitable and unfair the world is. For most libertarians it really will take a life changing experience for them to realize how very, very wrong they are. quote:Who knows about the personality disorder, I seem to do ok. Who is John Galt? I'm guessing from my extensive knowledge of libertarian bullshit, coupled with your posts in this thread that you are probably of an objectivist bent. Thats fair enough, but do keep in mind that Ayn Rand pretty much set up objectivism as a way to make her own sociopathic tendancies more culturally acceptable. She had a facination with a serial killer most famous for his brutal murder of a young girl. This is not someone you should be looking to as a role model. quote:I wasn't trying to go back and change my opinion, I legitimately misspoke and wanted to make that clear. Oddly enough, I have thought about and articulated these things before. I said that I immoral = unjustifiable, that's true, I just forgot half of the things that I hold to be unjustifiable. I've made a hot mess of my argument now by being quick and sloppy. Since you are quoting Hans Herman Hoppe, I'm curious to know if you are aware that Hoppe is a serious social conservative and racist. That in Hoppe's ideologically perfect world people could and should exclude people from their 'society' based on race, creed, sexuality and so forth. He further believes that his private covenants (which are in essence not at all dissimilar from a small government, and which ironically have their own social contracts) would be led by "The natural social elites." a phrase that should make you at least a little uncomfortable if you are opposed to ideas such as white supremacy. How do you reconcile these arguements from Hoppe with what you like about his work? quote:I'm open to new ideas, but 1) I've made a hot mess of my argument that I'd like to at least try to fix and 2)I haven't seen much by way of counter-arguments, its mostly just acting like I'm a troll You know what? I'll bite. quote:This is my understanding of Hoppe's argument (it may not be his argument accurately, but I still think it's This is superfluous. quote:- Epistemological questions aside, I first want to start off with defining “property” vs. “property rights”. I'd argue that you have a problem right off the get go here. While within your narrow series of ethics property rights are inviolable, this is not necesarily true for groups outside your own narrow focus. In fact most humans on the planet would argue that there are a variety of situations in which violations of your property rights can be justified by virtue of a greater societal good. quote:- So, Hoppe begins by noting that resources are scarce (at least, some resources are. Under present conditions Most of this makes sense to a point. I'd argue that most ethics are not necessarily derived from arguments over property, that ethics pertaining to child rearing, rape, social interactions etc don't' necessarily have anything to do with property unless we accept your premise that every human interaction is an interaction based on property, which pretty much no one does. But this isn't a huge point of argument anyways. quote:- So the real question of ethical philosophy is to determine what sort of ethical theory can be justified, You have proven nothing. This whole section is straight up Randian A=A psuedo-philosophical garbage. I hate to be so blunt but it really, really is. Your argument here for the layman poster who doesn't care to read your words, is that since we are using discussion to solve this conflict that somehow proves that argumentation is preferable to violence. This sort of argument would get you laughed out of any philosophy department in the nation because it is both shallow and unbelievably wrong. We both agree that talking is the best way to resolve problems. That does not however prohibit 'force' as a nebulous concept from ever being justified, it simply means we would prefer to resolve problems through peaceful and voluntary interactions whenever possible. Briefly I'll step aside to bring up a traditional example: A man falls from a building and catches hold of a lamppost. He is hanging outside of your 110th story window, the fall will clearly kill him and he has no way to escape his fate but to enter through your window. Since you are not around to have an argument with him on whether or not he should be allowed to enter your apartment, clearly force is his best and only option, even though he is agressing against you by breaking the window to access your apartment. Having proven some form of violence... wait. No. I haven't proven it either, what I have done is shown that there are instances in which agressing against someone else's property is the proper moral action for one person, while appearing improper to another. That is because morals are subjective, which is why the Non-Agression principle is stupid, because it is an absolute with no flexibility and no real ability to function in a complicated and messy world. quote:- Over one’s own body, the solution is simple: only a norm that states that each individual is the owner of An alternate solution to this conundrum is to not treat literally everything as though it were property. There are no inherent contradictions like this that pop up in my day to day life because I don't view myself as property. quote:- Over external resources (we have already determined that exclusive use is inevitable and that violence is For those of you reading along this is what is called the homesteading principle among libertarians. It seems logical enough on its face but I find that it falls apart when people realize this is not 1628, and that property, particularly land, is more a subject to a long chain of ownership than being laid claim to. quote:-I agree with previous users: Hoppe transcends the is-ought dichotomy. His ethic doesn’t establish a system Hoppe doesn't decide what is good or bad, he decides what is just or unjust... which is of course a fancy way of saying what is good or bad. Hoppean ethics, while rational are not inherently 'true', nor are the subject to verification under anything more than logic. You cannot verify moral laws, because despite what Ayn Rand has told you, there are not objective truths in this world outside of physical laws. You are a sack of meat, which is in turn a sack of base elements. Nothing you do from a moral perspective is objectively right or wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
"Reparations" don't have to be about whoever has money coughing it up into a big pile. Certainly it means that the currently wealthy will forgo some additional profit in the future, but that's not at all a repayment. It almost certainly should include changing policies to protect against abuse, particularly toward the African race but also against anyone else. Those who want to argue that such protection by the *gasp* Federal government is necessary, You Haven't Been Paying Attention.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Amergin posted:So if I'm a Chinese man who moved to the US 20 years ago and worked my way up to the "rich" class, do I have to pay reparations too? Yes. Why wouldn't you? It's the responsibility of all citizens of the country to contribute to righting it's wrongs and building a better, stronger future. You are not removed from your civic duties because of where you came from, or whether or not the problem was "your fault". As a citizen of this country, it is your duty to provide a portion of what you can afford to do that which should be done - from financing our military defense, to our regulatory structure, to our school system and our judicial system. Why would reparations, an attempt to right a series of wrongs that most assuredly deserve to be righted, be any exception to that?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
The hypothetical Chinese immigrant man certainly benefited from a system and government and society built upon the bones of slavery so yeah, he should chip in a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Amergin posted:He identifies as black so no. He's the beneficiary of the stolen wealth though. His father was an immigrant who was a glancing victim, at best, of the policies outlined in this article. His mother was white and the recipient of generations of ill-gotten gains. If were talking about paying the compounding interest of generations of injustice to the people who originally owned the principle, then he should be paying. Also, I can't believe people have repeatedly used self-identification as the basis for race in this thread. Are we really adopting the logic of tumblr transethnics? Race is a complicated phenomenon arising out of an intersection of history, society, and biology. The ability of how you identify to affect your social race is limited to certain edge cases. If obama had identified as white his whole life, do you think his experiences with racism would have much different? (the answer is no). Race, in the sense were, talking about is socially constructed and not a matter of choice or identification.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Hmm. Basically, the only reason anyone has property rights is because of this argumentation, therefore when you reject argumentation by opting for a different method of conflict resolution, you forego all the other stuff set out by argumentation, namely rights. The idea is that everyone recognizes that this is the most pleasant way to do business and the people who don't are still criminals, now they've debased themselves by committing a crime. I'm pretty sure all conflicts are equal (rape is just as bad as murder as stealing a dime). quote:Again, does not follow. You haven't stated why any objective claim other than "first person to appropriate a resource" can't be justifiable. I think you've made the assumption that any claim other than one based on appropriation must be subjective, but I don't see how you've come to that conclusion. quote:So only objective claims are justifiable, and the only objective claim I think that settles it, but the idea is that only the first claim (made by mixing your labor with unowned things) is objective, because there is no way to argue that any non 1st claim is better than any other non 1st claim, its all arbitrary after the first one. Raskolnikov38 posted:No problem You'd tend to have some sort of private police force and courts. Basically just police now except competition keeps them from doing all the stuff I don't like, and everyone they serve having agreed to it. (the criminals don't need to agree, because they've ditched their rights by rejecting argumentation, see above).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
absolem posted:I didn't say consumers of loans had done something 'wrong', just that they were a part of the crisis. What don't you get about the whole thing and everyone who participated being pants on head The question was how were they and the government rather than the banks the cause, and that's the answer you gave. What is with you and making up your own poo poo and then scrambling to walk it back when it gets pointed out?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
I still want to see how absolem reconciles his insistence that we dismantle democracy, government, the courts, and all the rest of it just to make sure that no rich person ever needs to have force initiated against him to take his property through taxes or force him not to fire people for being black...buuuuuuut when people ask him what happens if business owners hire private armies to coerce workers like they did historically we just get "Then move somewhere else, you whining poors"  Why doesn't this apply to the rich? Hell, at least in a democracy if we tell the rich to leave if they don't like the laws they actually have the resources to do this easily. absolem posted:I think that settles it, but the idea is that only the first claim (made by mixing your labor with unowned things) is objective, because there is no way to argue that any non 1st claim is better than any other non 1st claim, its all arbitrary after the first one. Pretty much all of the land in the United States has the owners it has because their ancestors or the ancestors of those they bought it from exterminated the people who were living there mixing their labor with the land. It's all arbitrary already. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:08 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The question was how were they and the government rather than the banks the cause, and that's the answer you gave. What is with you and making up your own poo poo and then scrambling to walk it back when it gets pointed out? They're definitely at fault for the crisis in some way, its just that they didnt do anything immoral (unless they lied on their loans or something which probably didnt happen too much) I never said anything different
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
absolem posted:Helping people is only a good idea insofar as it benefits you. I volunteer because it makes me feel good, it looks good to other people, and in some instances lifting other people up improves my economic situation. I don't suppose you've ever given any thought to why it makes you feel good? This is a very important point, please don't duck it. You are a moral animal, just like the other superior primates, and you've bamboozled yourself into thinking that helping others is anathema despite the fact that your own emotional response is telling you it's not.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:00
|
|
