|
SedanChair posted:Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an insane crank who wants to be conquered by an aryan king hth Oh yeah, he seems kinda nutty, but so do a lot of you people, and I'm still listening (and visa versa)
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
SickZip posted: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. Yes, people do get the chance to explain which society and background has effected them the most. The President's mother may have been white, but he's a dark-skinned man named "Barak" and would have faced many of the same the hardships other black men see every day. He may have had some material support from his mother's background, but even 'well-off' blacks are discriminated against.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:According to that NPR story about who hasn't read the Coates article: He's praising Coates writing style and the strength of the essay. Unless you take issue with the prose I'm not certain what the problem is
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
absolem posted:rape is just as bad as murder as stealing a dime 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
absolem posted:I'm pretty sure all conflicts are equal (rape is just as bad as murder as stealing a dime). How on Earth can you regard an argument that leads you to this sort of conclusion as having any sort of merit? This is just straight-up sociopathy. Edit: Also, you are aware that no logical framework can be both self-consistent and complete, right? This makes trying to argue for a deontological morality based on a priori principles a completely worthless and Sisyphean task. Shibby0709 fucked around with this message at 23:11 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
EDIT: I misread what you said, never mind.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
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. Abstractly, why should he receive anything? He received "stolen goods" as much as you can say that any white person did from intergenerational transfers. If were talking about racism in the span of his personal lifespan then  . Truly he suffered as a denizen of Hawaii who then shuffled from liberal institution to liberal institution. He is a suffering victim and not someone who disproportionally received benefits and sentiments meant to help those suffering from the legacy of racism and slavery since he's "black" but lacks all the unpleasant rough edges and cultural markers generated by the actual legacy.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
absolem posted: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 Did you never stop to ask yourself why it was called a financial crisis? The fact that it was mortgages being sold in those financial instruments was almost completely immaterial. Substitute with any other security in the midst of a Edit: I guess the housing bubble wasn't exactly "speculative"
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
absolem posted: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 Bullshit. The question was how were the banks not the responsible party for bundling the mortgages into securities, fraudulently rating them, and then leveraging the banks at 30:1 on what they knew to be bad debt. This was the part the banks did. And your response was that government regulations, time traveling knowledge of moral hazard, and consumer demand made them do it. You are an idiot using his own made up definitions and hypocrisy to justify what he wants.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
But guys what if we just make the pie higher.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
tbp posted:But without some sort of perfect benchmark for what would constitute morality one could argue it's rather subjective then can't they? Theism doesn't have a perfect benchmark, and in fact if you're implying a Judeao-Christian theism then it has a really imperfect benchmark.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Yes, people do get the chance to explain which society and background has effected them the most. The President's mother may have been white, but he's a dark-skinned man named "Barak" and would have faced many of the same the hardships other black men see every day. He may have had some material support from his mother's background, but even 'well-off' blacks are discriminated against. We really are on the countdown to people unironically posting about their black since their deep love for rap overrides their life in a white suburb
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I don't suppose you've ever given any thought to why it makes you feel good? I'm a moral animal insofar as I have some instinct as to what is right, wrong, or good for my survival. My emotional response probably corresponds to 1)my work being beneficial to society as a whole, and therefore to myself and 2) Other people being happy makes me happy.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
absolem posted:Oh yeah, he seems kinda nutty, but so do a lot of you people, and I'm still listening (and visa versa) Yet on the other hand, one has to question the fitness to judge nuttiness or lackthereof of someone who would unironically claim... absolem posted:rape is just as bad as murder as stealing a dime
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
absolem posted: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). "All conflicts are equal" is not a statement you've proved. Murder deprives a person of their life. It irrevocably (for now) ends their existence. It's the most extreme form of violence there is. Stealing a dime, on the other hand, probably won't even be noticed by the person in question. It deprives them of almost nothing. Converting "violence should not be used to resolve all conflicts" into NAP is question begging unless you've shown "all conflicts are equal." quote: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. But the idea of homesteading is not the only objective claim, not is homesteading always objective. I find a wild dog and domesticate it. Under your ethics, I've mixed my labor with the dog and now own. Now I let it live in my home, entering and leaving as it pleases. Someone else finds the dog, thinks it's wild, and trains it. The owner of the dog is now subjective between me and the other person. On the other hand, consider the distribution of the scarce resource coal. I might make the claim that it be distributed evenly among all people. It would certainly violate homesteading and you would disagree with it, but it's a claim that's seen objectively between everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
So I got 20 DebateDiscoFunBux that absolem really is just a jrodefeld rereg.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Man, I could write for NPR. Naet posted:Coates doesn't base his argument solely on slavery, nor does he advocate strictly monetary compensation. Yet, I would bet my life that every criticism of the argument will use two strawmen: NPR posted:1. They talk a lot about slavery.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
SickZip posted:Abstractly, why should he receive anything? He received "stolen goods" as much as you can say that any white person did from intergenerational transfers. He probably wouldn't take Reparations if they were offered, because he doesn't need them. Neither does Michelle. Neither do his daughters. Neither does Colin Powel... etc. See how that works?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Caros posted: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. Its always good to set stuff out just in case quote:
I'd argue that you cannot justify a violation. Keep in mind that being violent towards someone who has aggressed you is not a violation of their rights. quote:
most ethics aren't, these are. The other ones almost certainly can't be justified. quote:
Its not that argumentation is "better", just that its framework provides things like property rights, while lawlessness/violence/whathaveyou is only animals beating each other to death whenever it suits them. Its totally ok to not use argumentation, just don't expect to have it both ways. Your example does not prove that the NAP is dumb. The man could simply fall to his death, that would be justifiable. As unjustifiable as his action was in this situation, he could probably take it (without thinking or whatever) and explain himself to the owner and be forgiven. quote:
I know you don't agree that they're different, but doing something outside of the NAP just means that you aren't protected by it, not that you aren't allowed. I'm really not a fan of Rand anymore (paul or ayn lol). Surprise surprise I liked her as a sophomore in high school. Hoppe is kind of a nut, but I don't see why that should stop him from saying some correct things. He can do whatever he wants in his little fiefdoms he wants to construct, and if he like social contract theory, I didn't know (I think you're mistaken about that though). Thanks a ton for reading over that. I still think you're wrong, but I definitely have areas to polish someone suggested that this argument be taken to its own thread, and that makes a lot of sense, could someone either do that for me or give me some pointers? I'll pay you in not making GBS threads up this thread like this anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So I got 20 DebateDiscoFunBux that absolem really is just a jrodefeld rereg. I'm not, but believe whatever you want. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:"All conflicts are equal" is not a statement you've proved. Murder deprives a person of their life. It irrevocably (for now) ends their existence. It's the most extreme form of violence there is. Stealing a dime, on the other hand, probably won't even be noticed by the person in question. It deprives them of almost nothing. Well, for all conflicts equal, the only issue is property rights. There is one line, which delineates not violating from violating, and there is no reason one violation should be different from another. Any violation is an action outside of the NAP and thereby puts the actor outside the protection of property rights.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Alright, assuming that we agree that inequality exists and that the poorest black is many times poorer than the poorest whites
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:He's praising Coates writing style and the strength of the essay. Unless you take issue with the prose I'm not certain what the problem is
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So I got 20 DebateDiscoFunBux that absolem really is just a jrodefeld rereg. Pay up, I got him to post that courts would probably need to exist which jrodefeld would never do.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Pay up, I got him to post that courts would probably need to exist which jrodefeld would never do. you didn't make me do anything...
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Theism doesn't have a perfect benchmark, and in fact if you're implying a Judeao-Christian theism then it has a really imperfect benchmark. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. More plainly, if there is no arbiter of morality with, I suppose, a reasonable justification to be said arbiter (a deity of some sort in that sense) then all self-imposed morality appears to me to to be an effort in ego-satisfying. That's not a bad thing at all though!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Miltank posted:What on earth would make you think this is true? Destitute is destitute. I'd rather be destitute and white and not have to face racial hatred on top of the normal class problems that comes with being destitute and black. This is what TNC's been stressing, poor blacks are not poor whites, their problems are different, come from different places, and require different solutions. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 23:52 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
absolem posted:Well, for all conflicts equal, the only issue is property rights. There is one line, which delineates not violating from violating, and there is no reason one violation should be different from another. Any violation is an action outside of the NAP and thereby puts the actor outside the protection of property rights. Ok, but all conflicts are still not equal. Not violating NAP against someone advocating NAP doesn't equate to not violating NAP in all circumstances.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
absolem posted: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. I would argue that reparations would be social cooperation then. I'm sure the how's and why's have been addressed since this thread has been exploding with people trying to poke holes in your belief structure, but all I would say is that I seriously doubt reparations would even affect anyone other than those who have benefited these scams. Also, I would disagree that charity is not a universally helpful enterprise. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your idea of "universally helpful." It seems like you've disagreed with that idea by typing the sentence that came directly afterward. This thread is moving so fast. I really wanted to come out of my lurky-murky hidey-hole to echo what a lot of people have already said. Reparations would be A Good Thing. It should happen, because it is fair and just. People were robbed and hamstrung, and the idea that "oh it was so long ago it doesn't matter" is completely absent of the realization that society has never tried to restore any balance. Rainbow Knight fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Ok, but all conflicts are still not equal. Not violating NAP against someone advocating NAP doesn't equate to not violating NAP in all circumstances. Could you elaborate as to why not?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
So the GOP candidates for Governor of Colorado (all men) had a debate about "Women and Colorado’s Future" where they'd be asked questions by women. The moderator asks the women to join the candidates on stage and.... cue the music from The Dating Game! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C-BxmwiDik
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Nevermind
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:50 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:I'd rather be destitute and white and not have to face racial hatred on top of the normal class problems that comes with being destitute and white. This is what TNC's been stressing, poor blacks are not poor whites, their problems are different, come from different places, and require different solutions. This cannot be stressed enough. There are almost no, if any, situations where all other things being equal a white person won't be better off than a black person in similar situations simply because of the systemic institutions in place that will always favor the white person over the black person.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
absolem posted:
Hit the post button, copy your pastebin material into your OP, and make sure the title is witty and relevant. Just type anything, really. Everything you write is such bullshit it will act like chum on this forum. Do it now, it will be a fun thread for everyone involved, and this thread can go back to being whatever the hell it was before you showed up.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Hit the post button, copy your pastebin material into your OP, and make sure the title is witty and relevant. Just type anything, really. Everything you write is such bullshit it will act like chum on this forum. Do it now, it will be a fun thread for everyone involved, and this thread can go back to being whatever the hell it was before you showed up. If you do do this, shoot Xylo an email or PM or whatever first because I recall he had some specific rules for the last time jrodefeld did something like this. e: welp http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636675
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
absolem, what's your plan for returning all of the land and resources of the US to the Native Americans, the unambiguously rightful owners whom we can objectively say everything that exists in America today was stolen from? You seem pretty hung up on property rights, so this seems like it's a pretty big priority for you.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Langosta posted:I would argue that reparations would be social cooperation then. I'm sure the how's and why's have been addressed since this thread has been exploding with people trying to poke holes in your belief structure, but all I would say is that I seriously doubt reparations would even affect anyone other than those who have benefited these scams. Charity sometimes hurts those its designed to help, you have to carefully evaluate each program to see if its good or not Hey if you want to keep dogpiling me you better do it in a different thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636675&pagenumber=1 I'm going to confine my talk here to US politics
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
-EDIT- Haha, whelp, never mind! Who What Now fucked around with this message at 23:54 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So your entire ethical philosophy seems to rest on the inviolability of property rights and the objective requirement to define ownership based on first appropriation of land. Not all american land was owned (you can use it and not own it by virtue of not wanting it). If someone showed me that something I owned was actually owned by someone else, I would surrender it to them at once and so too should everyone else. That isn't the same as a blanket reparation. anyway, I'm done with anything not US Pol in this thread, but you can still rag on me at http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636675&pagenumber=1
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Lemming posted:absolem, what's your plan for returning all of the land and resources of the US to the Native Americans, the unambiguously rightful owners whom we can objectively say everything that exists in America today was stolen from? You seem pretty hung up on property rights, so this seems like it's a pretty big priority for you. My plan is that if I'm ever shown that something I claim to own is in fact owned by someone else, that I will immediately surrender it to them and offer to pay them back in the hope that they don't put me in the mines for the rest of my life (and also recommend that everyone else does likewise). see my post in response to vitalsigns
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Christ. I just read all this.  I cannot wait for the midterms.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:58
|
|
