|
Spangly A posted:I've heard this in real life from minorities. What do they think they're getting for that price?
|
# ? May 25, 2014 10:59 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 19:38 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:tl;dr, Rothbard was a dick Wow, that was pretty incredible stuff. I knew he was bad but not that bad. Thanks for the info! Who What Now posted:Holy poo poo Walter Block is a loving LOON! Not to mention and enormous racist ("blacks don't have jobs because they are too lazy to earn those minimum wage jobs." What?! ). And it is way different hearing stuff that absolem was saying nearly word for word coming from a real person's mouth than it is reading it on a forum, and not it a good way. I wanted to violate the NAP and reach through time and space and throttle the man. Yeah, he's a complete fuckwit, and an arsehole to boot. A while ago I went through his 'defending the undefendable', a book where he explicitly defends discrimination, child labour and all sorts of Bad Things, and made a short compendium of some of the arguments: A great source for anti-libertarian arguments is blogger Matt Bruenig. He seems to make short work libertarian theories on a daily basis (at least IMHO), in particular the implicit 'just deserts' theory of income distribution and the non-aggression principle. He also shreds the worst libertarians like HHH specifically. The NAP is pretty easy to take down. Quite clearly, property rights involve 'initiating violence' against somebody. Libertarians only get round this by stretching the word 'violence' until it's lost all meaning.
|
# ? May 25, 2014 14:24 |
|
Unlearning posted:A great source for anti-libertarian arguments is blogger Matt Bruenig. He seems to make short work libertarian theories on a daily basis (at least IMHO), in particular the implicit 'just deserts' theory of income distribution and the non-aggression principle. He also shreds the worst libertarians like HHH specifically. After reading a few of his articles, his takedown of the NAP is a bit weak and strawmans the libertarian position a bit. The NAP, in my understanding, is generally a system of conflict resolution that can be applied to a variety of property schemes. If you don't also accept the property right scheme then of course it doesn't make sense. Many libertarians believe in homesteading based on a use-rights system of property rather than a "spatial" rights system. By "spatial" rights I mean something akin to Lockean homesteading (e.g. mixing your labor with the land). However use-rights are based not on a metaphysical mixing of self and substance, but on the general principle that people should be free to pursue work and plans that they think will better their lives and achieve their goals. To illustrate the difference, imagine Person A is growing corn on a plot of land. Person B puts up a radio tower next door and starts broadcasting radio signals that pass through A's land and corn. Is B aggressing against A? If you're operating under a spatial-rights system, then yes, as they're sending energy into the area A owns. However, if you're under a use-right scheme, then B's radio waves are in no way affecting A's right to continue growing their corn unmolested. Aggression is based upon affecting the other person's broader actions that they have already set in place, not merely a metaphysical claim to matter occupying a 3 dimensional space. I think the NAP becomes far more consistent and less troublesome under a use-right regime rather than one based on spatial-rights. For example, using the NAP to justify the old trope of someone getting shot because they happened to wander over a property line falls apart under a use-rights scheme. Bruneig mentions Matt Zwolinski's Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle, and I think applying the NAP under a use-rights system address points 1, 2, 5, and 6. Point 4 (fraud) is a weird one because libertarian objections to fraud have usually been about the fact that a voluntary agreement was made under intentionally misleading circumstances. The perpetrator of the fraud intentionally deceives another party into voluntarily making an exchange that would otherwise be involuntary. When the fraud is uncovered and provable, the victim is free to take retributive action as if any other straightforward theft had occurred. Point number 3, regarding risk, is the only one that I don't think the NAP would really be useful in addressing, and is tied into issues a libertarian system has with preventative measures rather than reactive ones. Probably one of the things that would be addressed with the nebulous hypothetical common law of Libertopia.
|
# ? May 25, 2014 16:02 |
|
LogisticEarth posted:After reading a few of his articles, his takedown of the NAP is a bit weak and strawmans the libertarian position a bit. The NAP, in my understanding, is generally a system of conflict resolution that can be applied to a variety of property schemes. If you don't also accept the property right scheme then of course it doesn't make sense. Well, yeah - that's his point: the NAP never does any argumentative work at any time. It always rests on an implicit theory of distributive justice. quote:To illustrate the difference, imagine Person A is growing corn on a plot of land. Person B puts up a radio tower next door and starts broadcasting radio signals that pass through A's land and corn. Is B aggressing against A? If you're operating under a spatial-rights system, then yes, as they're sending energy into the area A owns. However, if you're under a use-right scheme, then B's radio waves are in no way affecting A's right to continue growing their corn unmolested. Aggression is based upon affecting the other person's broader actions that they have already set in place, not merely a metaphysical claim to matter occupying a 3 dimensional space. Maybe I'm misreading, but to me this just seems like an argument for socialist-style possession over property: people have a right to own something if they are using it, rather than just by legal fiat - as is the case now. I mean, how can you justify unused stocks of food and massive fortunes while others starve under a use-rights ethic?
|
# ? May 25, 2014 17:28 |
Unlearning posted:Well, yeah - that's his point: the NAP never does any argumentative work at any time. It always rests on an implicit theory of distributive justice. This isn't even a novel argument, that's literally been the argument against famine relief efforts until relatively recently.
|
|
# ? May 25, 2014 17:42 |
|
Yes, you can "justify" absolutely anything. But that doesn't make the justification automatically valid and sound.
|
# ? May 25, 2014 17:48 |
|
Unlearning posted:Maybe I'm misreading, but to me this just seems like an argument for socialist-style possession over property: people have a right to own something if they are using it, rather than just by legal fiat - as is the case now. I mean, how can you justify unused stocks of food and massive fortunes while others starve under a use-rights ethic? The difference is that the use-rights are homesteadable, transferable, and perpetual until abandonment, as determined under whatever legal structure exists. In the aforementioned crop scenario, you're using a certain plot of land for agricultural/production purposes. You decide to stop growing corn, perhaps because you have enough but plan a new crop for next season, perhaps because you're letting the soil lie fallow, etc. The land isn't free to be developed or planted, because that would interfere with the currently existing right for agricultural development. Of course, the owner could choose to use the land for a different purpose, homesteading new rights, or transfer the use-rights to someone else. For things like capital, stocks of food, etc. they're all generated from labor, land, and capital, which would all be owned prior to the production of surpluses, and the "rightful" owners would be the individual producer or whatever group of individuals were operating under mutual agreement. Presumably people are producing surpluses of food, capital, etc. for a purpose or plan; either for direct use, stockpile for later use, or for trade. It comes down to how property is defined, when one considers it abandoned, and the question of whether one can trade labor (i.e. wages). Everything else is a moral question of when it is moral (if not legally right) to break the law. Using the stockpile example, is it wrong for someone to keep a stockpile of seed corn for the next season, when people are starving outside? What about a a stock of food that is meant to last the winter, when the neighbors are already starving during the summer? What about a stock of finished goods that you wish to sell to leave a nest egg for your family's future well being, while someone else needs healthcare today? These are moral and ethical questions though, not a theory of property rights. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 18:17 on May 25, 2014 |
# ? May 25, 2014 18:09 |
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Depends upon what he means by "anarchism", but most anarchist societies operated like a ground-up, nonhierarchical directly democratic government. If one small group decided the rules didn't apply to them the rest would respond in an organized way very much as a state would using their equivalent of police or militia. Anarchists draw some kind of distinction between State and Government, retaining the latter in all but name, but I'll let Tias give his own opinion. I've really given up on defending the left-anarchist position here in DD because of the shrieking trot circlejerk that always ensue, but if you lot are serious, PM me. Otherwise, I can heartily recommend the anarchist FAQ: http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ and the sublime 2-volume work Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. More fleshed-out anarchist positions than you can shake a stick at, and probably better expresst than I am capable of.
|
# ? May 25, 2014 19:09 |
|
Tias posted:I've really given up on defending the left-anarchist position here in DD because of the shrieking trot circlejerk that always ensue, Trot? As in "Trotskyist"? Well that's a new one around here, but as far as insults go I feel that "statist" is better. Both make you look like a whiney baby, though. quote:but if you lot are serious, PM me. I suppose I could, but since I'd just repost the exchange here, you might as well just post here anyway. Furthermore if you aren't able to defend your views then you should probably question why you even have them in the first place. Chances are you yourself probably don't even understand your own position.
|
# ? May 25, 2014 21:31 |
|
Who What Now posted:Trot? As in "Trotskyist"? Well that's a new one around here, but as far as insults go I feel that "statist" is better. Given that you clearly are not serious about wanting to understand Tias's politics, why would they have a discussion with you?
|
# ? May 25, 2014 23:02 |
|
Mornacale posted:Given that you clearly are not serious about wanting to understand Tias's politics, why would they have a discussion with you? What, do I have to use only the Queens Olde Englishe with no hint of humor and humanity? I honestly want to know why he believes what he believes, because the way it's been presented to me before is childish and untenable. So that's how I treat it.
|
# ? May 25, 2014 23:07 |
|
Who What Now posted:What, do I have to use only the Queens Olde Englishe with no hint of humor and humanity? I honestly want to know why he believes what he believes, because the way it's been presented to me before is childish and untenable. So that's how I treat it. I'm not concerned with your word choice so much as claiming a serious interest in someone's opinion while simultaneously calling them a whiny baby and claiming they don't understand their own ideology. Especially since if you're not even familiar with the use of "trot" as a pejorative it's pretty clear that you're not coming from a position of knowledge.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 00:58 |
|
Mornacale posted:I'm not concerned with your word choice so much as claiming a serious interest in someone's opinion while simultaneously calling them a whiny baby and claiming they don't understand their own ideology. Especially since if you're not even familiar with the use of "trot" as a pejorative it's pretty clear that you're not coming from a position of knowledge. Except that I had heard of trot as a pejorative, just not here on SA. And yeah, I think that people that come into the thread and go "you plebes just can't handle a discussion of my super awesome political philosophy" and peaces out probably doesn't actually know what they're talking about. But posting about posting about posting is even worse, so I'm gonna stop before the mods get mad.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 01:17 |
|
At the end of the day, you have to discuss these things as an extreme critique of government as it exists instead of a panacea for all social problems. I've noticed that political philosophies you don't like have to solve all problems, or they are dumb, where the status quo has the advantage of being time tested and stable. Noting the advantages of no government over the status quo is not without merit; you'll see libertarians more or less study their philosophy, and implement the things they find advantageous into the current system. The same can be said of socialists and the social programs they implement.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 02:10 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:At the end of the day, you have to discuss these things as an extreme critique of government as it exists instead of a panacea for all social problems. I've noticed that political philosophies you don't like have to solve all problems, or they are dumb, where the status quo has the advantage of being time tested and stable. Noting the advantages of no government over the status quo is not without merit; you'll see libertarians more or less study their philosophy, and implement the things they find advantageous into the current system. The same can be said of socialists and the social programs they implement. Libertarians are not anti-government, they want a legal and justice system, they want contracts to be enforced, they want a police force to defend private property, and they want all other state institutions that make the "market" a thing. When they say they are "anti-government" they mean they are against the state being accountable to the masses or serving any interests other than those of the capitalist class.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 02:28 |
|
I agree, though in many aspects they are anti-government. Just not uniformly so. My statement was more about the various flavors of anarchism. I don't think even the true believers of libertarianism are under the impression it will benefit all classes.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 02:36 |
|
Tias posted:I've really given up on defending the left-anarchist position here in DD because of the shrieking trot circlejerk that always ensue, but if you lot are serious, PM me. Otherwise, I can heartily recommend the anarchist FAQ: http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ and the sublime 2-volume work Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. More fleshed-out anarchist positions than you can shake a stick at, and probably better expresst than I am capable of. If feel like if you're throwing around "trot" as an damning insult, or at all honestly, you need to take a step back. This isn't 1936 in the USSR, and the idea of D&D having a coherent, single ideology, let alone one as niche as Trotskyism is pretty absurd. Edit: that was a little hostile. What I mean is, I and I'm sure other posters would be interested in learning about left anarchism, but when you dismiss us using a phrase unheard outside of Purge trials and the dumbest type of left wing factionalism, it's not very interesting. Smiling Knight fucked around with this message at 03:43 on May 26, 2014 |
# ? May 26, 2014 03:39 |
|
Tias posted:I've really given up on defending the left-anarchist position here in DD because of the shrieking trot circlejerk that always ensue, but if you lot are serious, PM me. Otherwise, I can heartily recommend the anarchist FAQ: http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ and the sublime 2-volume work Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. More fleshed-out anarchist positions than you can shake a stick at, and probably better expresst than I am capable of. Left anarchism is pretty much just hoping that a world with no ability to control other people will end up with people working together. It is in other words, exactly the same as anarcho capitalism or any other anarcho-trash in actual outcome. Fortunately for the planet, it, like them, can never actually happen. In the real world, states are awesome, and also impossible for any form of anarchism to prevent the formation of.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 06:09 |
|
I don't really need to back up my assertion that authoritarian socialists on D&D throw an absolute piss-fit at the thought of libertarian socialism, when a trip to the archives can do that so much quicker. I'm real sorry I hurt your feelings, but I'd rather debate people who haven't decided to poo poo on said debate. Install Windows, you still haven't read the link I posted, have you? Anarchism is in no way opposed to control. Also, you don't seem to understand what a state is. Please
|
# ? May 26, 2014 07:21 |
|
A state is: the correct way to organize human society. Anarchism is: an outdated concept that had a lot more to do with opposing monarchial systems in the past than modern states. No one's "making GBS threads on the debate". There is no debate, it's like claiming that people are "making GBS threads on the climate debate" by refusing to listen to Chuck Koch tell us that global warming isn't real. Edit: It is cute though, to straight facedly claim that anyone in favor of working society is "authoritarian". Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 07:41 on May 26, 2014 |
# ? May 26, 2014 07:25 |
|
Tias, you should make another another anarchism thread.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 07:29 |
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short: It's like Judge Dredd meets the Christian Taliban. Nothing says 'hands off government' like police dealing out punishment in the streets.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 07:32 |
|
rudatron posted:Tias, you should make another another anarchism thread. Like sandcastles on the beach, my friend.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 07:44 |
|
Tias posted:Like sandcastles on the beach, my friend. Yes, childish and non-resilient is a good description of anarchism. And no matter how fancy you make it, it inevitably collapses.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 07:45 |
|
I just explained that's why we have to discuss anarchism as an extreme critique of the state: if you think you know for certain that man is basically good or inherently evil, you are wrong. That is a metaphysical question, and not germane to discussing a political theory. By definition, anarchism is not a form of government. What you think is the plan for a government is actually a reason that we may be better off without a government.
Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 09:09 on May 26, 2014 |
# ? May 26, 2014 09:03 |
|
LogisticEarth posted:The difference is that the use-rights are homesteadable, transferable, and perpetual until abandonment, as determined under whatever legal structure exists. In the aforementioned crop scenario, you're using a certain plot of land for agricultural/production purposes. You decide to stop growing corn, perhaps because you have enough but plan a new crop for next season, perhaps because you're letting the soil lie fallow, etc. The land isn't free to be developed or planted, because that would interfere with the currently existing right for agricultural development. Of course, the owner could choose to use the land for a different purpose, homesteading new rights, or transfer the use-rights to someone else. I'm not talking about when somebody postpones using the land; I'm talking about when they simply abandon it and have no reason to exclude others from accessing it. This seems unjustified by your earlier definition of use-rights: you said that "B's radio waves are in no way affecting A's right to continue growing their corn unmolested". The same thing applies if A stops using the land to grow corn (indefinitely), and C decides that he'd like to do so instead. C's decision does not affect A at all. quote:Everything else is a moral question of when it is moral (if not legally right) to break the law. Using the stockpile example, is it wrong for someone to keep a stockpile of seed corn for the next season, when people are starving outside? What about a a stock of food that is meant to last the winter, when the neighbors are already starving during the summer? What about a stock of finished goods that you wish to sell to leave a nest egg for your family's future well being, while someone else needs healthcare today? These are moral and ethical questions though, not a theory of property rights. They are moral and ethical questions which have direct bearing on the theory of property rights and when they may or may not be justified. This kind of stuff already contributes to actual political and legal decisions, so I don't see why a legal structure of possession that made ethical and moral questions the criteria for ownership would be any more problematic than the current one.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 09:57 |
|
It's kind of hard to take anti-anarchist arguments seriously when those arguments evince such a complete ignorance of anarchism. There's serious, hard questions to ask about libertarian socialism, but "Why do you think there should be no society or government?" isn't one of them.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 11:26 |
|
Unlearning posted:I'm not talking about when somebody postpones using the land; I'm talking about when they simply abandon it and have no reason to exclude others from accessing it. This seems unjustified by your earlier definition of use-rights: you said that "B's radio waves are in no way affecting A's right to continue growing their corn unmolested". The same thing applies if A stops using the land to grow corn (indefinitely), and C decides that he'd like to do so instead. C's decision does not affect A at all.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 11:41 |
|
Unlearning posted:The NAP is pretty easy to take down. Quite clearly, property rights involve 'initiating violence' against somebody. Libertarians only get round this by stretching the word 'violence' until it's lost all meaning. Asking a libertarian to define "ownership" and "property" can be pretty hilarious. A lot of them take it as a priori that objects or land are things which can be owned. If you start asking them what it means to "own" something or where "ownership" comes from they have a real hard time defending it. It's kind of low hanging fruit, though. Most of them have never thought about it for more than 2 seconds so it catches them off guard. I'm sure there's some weird tautological catch-phrase they have to boot strap ownership of land in their system. My one MRA libertarian friend used to pick fights with me over libertarian bullshit, and then eventually going down this path of argumentation caused him to snap and say, "gently caress you, do you think you're morally superior to me or something?" He hasn't talked to me since. We didn't really have a lot in common except for some random life events. He thought Murray Rothbard was a worthwhile citation in our arguments. It's almost not even worth it to get into the details of the effects of any policy they might talk about because it's essentially letting them frame the debate. All of the libertarian argumentation that leads to uncomfortable conclusions in their opinion is like, "Welp, I don't like child prostitution, but it's just so logical " Libertarian theology is only logical if you take their a priori assumptions as true. All their nonsense falls like a house of cards when you start attacking any of the myriad initial assumptions they're basing everything on. ErIog fucked around with this message at 13:46 on May 26, 2014 |
# ? May 26, 2014 13:40 |
|
Unlearning posted:I'm not talking about when somebody postpones using the land; I'm talking about when they simply abandon it and have no reason to exclude others from accessing it. This seems unjustified by your earlier definition of use-rights: you said that "B's radio waves are in no way affecting A's right to continue growing their corn unmolested". The same thing applies if A stops using the land to grow corn (indefinitely), and C decides that he'd like to do so instead. C's decision does not affect A at all. Well, how do you determine the difference between postponing the use, a very low-impact use (e.g. land conservation), and abandonment? I'm not sure there's really a universal standard for this anywhere. Historically this has been a matter of common law and dispute resolution/legal systems. The vague answer is "when they're not using it" or "using it legitimately" but that's going to be entirely circumstantial. A land tax is one way to discourage effective abandonment, however it also encourages some less desirable things, like over development or over-production. quote:They are moral and ethical questions which have direct bearing on the theory of property rights and when they may or may not be justified. This kind of stuff already contributes to actual political and legal decisions, so I don't see why a legal structure of possession that made ethical and moral questions the criteria for ownership would be any more problematic than the current one. Not whether the rights themselves are justified, but whether violating the rights are justified or understandable. A system of rights based on whatever was deemed moral/ethical at the time is hugely arbitrary. Static rights, based on fundamental principles, that may happen to be violated from time to time by crimes of necessity seems a lot less open to abuse and confusion. And it also creates a system of restitution after the fact, should it be deemed appropriate. Consider the old lifeboat scenario. Two guys in a boat in the ocean, only enough fresh water for one. Man A kills man B out of desperation to survive. Did A violate B's rights? Absolutely. Was it wrong? That's a whole other question. You can't expect A or B to patiently wait, bhudda-like to die of thirst. But as A violated B's right to life, then whoever is taking up the case of B (heirs, state justice system, whatever) has a claim against A. The act might be forgiven, or it might be punished.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 15:26 |
|
I have problems with left-anarchism (you might find me to be an "authoritarian socialist", Tias) but as far as political philosophies go I'm pretty cool with it and have lots of sympathy for its adherents. Liberalism is much more of a childish idealist worldview than left-anarchism could ever be, and trying to equate it to right-libertarianism is insultingly reductive. It's pretty ridiculous for leftists to refuse to engage with left-anarchism when most people out there simply buy ruling class ideology wholesale. I would enjoy reading such a left-anarchism thread. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 26, 2014 |
# ? May 26, 2014 15:41 |
|
LogisticEarth posted:Well, how do you determine the difference between postponing the use, a very low-impact use (e.g. land conservation), and abandonment? I don't see how this is more difficult than settling any other legal dispute. Courts can decide what is owned by whom and for what purpose they are using it through debate using evidence (eg reasons for seasonal abandonment; future procured contracts; past behaviour) to determine whether land use is just postponed temporarily or if the land is effectively abandoned, along with whether it could be better put to some other purpose (given to someone else). quote:Not whether the rights themselves are justified, but whether violating the rights are justified or understandable. How can you decide what a right is without deciding what violates it? Wikipedia states that "rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." What people are allowed to do or entitled to, and what others are allowed to do or entitled to do to them, is exactly what rights are. So the ethical debate over what 'violates' a right and when this might be justified (what people are not entitled to do) is essentially the same debate as what the right actually is. quote:A system of rights based on whatever was deemed moral/ethical at the time is hugely arbitrary. Static rights, based on fundamental principles, that may happen to be violated from time to time by crimes of necessity seems a lot less open to abuse and confusion. And it also creates a system of restitution after the fact, should it be deemed appropriate. What exactly are "fundamental principles" and how are they different to "whatever was deemed moral/ethical at the time"? Property rights themselves are an example of a historically contingent institution based on certain ethics (individualism, just deserts, capitalism itself). quote:Consider the old lifeboat scenario. Two guys in a boat in the ocean, only enough fresh water for one. Man A kills man B out of desperation to survive. Did A violate B's rights? Absolutely. Was it wrong? That's a whole other question. You can't expect A or B to patiently wait, bhudda-like to die of thirst. But as A violated B's right to life, then whoever is taking up the case of B (heirs, state justice system, whatever) has a claim against A. The act might be forgiven, or it might be punished. What I am arguing for (and saying the use-ethic argues for) is an ex ante 'redistribution' of property rights where the property is not being used, as deemed by a court of law or council of elders or what have you. Your example is a case of an ex post punishment for somebody violating a right before there's been such a debate over whether their actions are justified. The analogous case for property would be where somebody (for consistency, let's say a homeless person with nowhere else to go) camps out on abandoned land that is currently in the ownership of someone else, and the question of whether rights were violated and whether it was 'wrong' are again separate.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 15:49 |
|
Cross post from the ethics thread. I thought I posted but I don't see it here so apologies if it's a double post but: How do Libertarian ethics and morality systems deal with the issues of the commons? Meaning, say, if I live on land that has a river running behind it, can I dam it up or claim ownership of that one section that runs through my property? What if I start dumping garbage in it and it floats downstream into someone else's house? What if I just put a dam in there to generate my own energy? Do I have a moral obligation to let the people downstream have access to clean water; or any water at all? Or does that fall under the "harming someone else" part of the property laws platform? What about things like sanitation or first responders? That sort of thing. Some guy croaks in front of my street or dies in a car wreck out there. What private enterprise removes the bodies or do we let them rot in the sun? Who repairs any damage to the street or clears the wreckage? The property owner? Whoever caused the crash? What if they don't have the money? I assume in Libertopia there's no sort of insurance mandate. Am I allowed to have a big, stinking Homer Simpson landfill in my back yard even it's stinking up my neighbor's air and I'm attracting bugs and vermin everywhere? Who determines health hazards and safety issues in the commons and who enforces them, private companies? If so, who hires them? By "commons" of course I'm speaking about the things we all have to share like roads, electricity, water. Libertarianism offers no solution for this that I've found.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 19:29 |
|
BiggerBoat posted:Cross post from the ethics thread. I thought I posted but I don't see it here so apologies if it's a double post but: This part I believe is covered less by ethics and more by strong contract law in a libertarian society. Any place you buy, along with the standard title would probably include a series of agreements with everyone upstream of you on what the proper legal usage of the water is, and requirements by everyone downstream of you on what you can do with the water. It overly complicates the poo poo out of the title system, and has a bunch of huge flaws, but its at least theoretically workable. This is the traditional response to the libertarian problem of 'entrapment' as well, where a property owner could theoretically purchase all of the roads and land around your home, thus preventing you from leaving. The idea would be that any roads would come pre-packaged with contractual obligations to allow for reasonable public use when they are bought from the government at the start of libertopia.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 19:45 |
|
Gonna cross post this one too and then knock it off because this is a better thread.Nessus posted:Now that said in practical terms many (perhaps most) libertarians acknowledge a need for at least a courthouse for you to attempt to sue the giant factory owner in, and some cops to come arrest you when you end up in arrears on your mortgage, as well as perhaps an extremely basic sort of social services - the corpse-pickers, etc. So basically if we implemented all their ideas, the first things they'd do is go "poo poo, we really need to get these roads built/repaired. You know, there aren't enough schools around here either and my internet connection is pretty lovely. Between that jerk who hosed up my river and that poo poo with the landfill next door I got sick. I wonder if we could have a hospital close by or maybe a police station so I could call and have someone come over and tell him to knock that poo poo off. That car wreck is still over there too and the bodies are beginning to smell." They'd be clamoring for something to be done and, with no obvious profit margin to be had unless it were paid for collectively, no private company would touch it. They'd immediately want a...I dunno...a government of some sort to...say...regulate these sorts of common societal issues. As long as I'm on it though, what about things like hunting and fishing restrictions? What if some rear end in a top hat collects all the fish and game in the county and nobody has anything to eat unless they pay extortionist prices brought about by the monopoly on the fish and game supply?
|
# ? May 26, 2014 19:55 |
|
BiggerBoat posted:As long as I'm on it though, what about things like hunting and fishing restrictions? What if some rear end in a top hat collects all the fish and game in the county and nobody has anything to eat unless they pay extortionist prices brought about by the monopoly on the fish and game supply? Technology will develop an alternative and profit seeking companies will undercut the monopolist. after everyone has starved
|
# ? May 26, 2014 20:13 |
|
It seems like the major complaint here is the lack if counterpoint to any of the critiques we give to libertarianism. Is there a reason nobody has suggested trying to find some means of debating directly with libertarians? Is there a forum rule or precedent against buying accounts for people to argue with? I'd be willing to throw $10 in if somebody found a worthwhile subject, maybe an r/libertarian mod or something? Otherwise, it's not like SA has never "invaded" other forums, again unless there's a rule I don't know. I don't have any plans to continue with the idea unless others agree it would be worthwhile. I'm sure it could just end up being obnoxious, but people like jrodefield are entertaining.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 22:13 |
|
CCrew posted:It seems like the major complaint here is the lack if counterpoint to any of the critiques we give to libertarianism. Is there a reason nobody has suggested trying to find some means of debating directly with libertarians? Is there a forum rule or precedent against buying accounts for people to argue with? I'd be willing to throw $10 in if somebody found a worthwhile subject, maybe an r/libertarian mod or something? Otherwise, it's not like SA has never "invaded" other forums, again unless there's a rule I don't know. I actually did this one time on the Mises.org forums, or one of the offshoots, linking one of the older threads to get someone over here. Basically what happens is that the only people willing to persistently brave the anti-libertarian viper pit that is D&D are natural trolls. It's entertaining, but not really productive. Like I was telling Jagtiger before, the only thing you often learn from casual forum debate is that trolls talk the loudest. Also, pretty sure forum invasions are discouraged nowdays, unless you were talking about some kind of reverse-invasion of posters coming to SA.
|
# ? May 26, 2014 22:25 |
|
CCrew posted:It seems like the major complaint here is the lack if counterpoint to any of the critiques we give to libertarianism. Is there a reason nobody has suggested trying to find some means of debating directly with libertarians? Is there a forum rule or precedent against buying accounts for people to argue with? I'd be willing to throw $10 in if somebody found a worthwhile subject, maybe an r/libertarian mod or something? Otherwise, it's not like SA has never "invaded" other forums, again unless there's a rule I don't know. This isn't really necessary. A lot of us here used to be libertarians, and this forum itself was fairly libertarian for some time. A lot of them moved over to other kinds of political philosophies or got run out of the forum for not being able to answer the kinds of critiques we've been talking about in this thread. I really don't think there's a need to relitigate it from the beginning with new blood because that's a very predictable conversation you can play Libertarian bingo with. This thread being a place to discuss new wrinkles in various flavors of libertarianism and the libertarian movement in general seems interesting to me, though. Their arguments are pretty facile, and not really that difficult to understand. A lot of us being former libertarians can articulate them for you probably better than they can. My critique of "ownership" being taken a priori is a good example of something a lot of run of the mill libertarians aren't politically aware enough to have even begun to think about.
|
# ? May 27, 2014 00:41 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 19:38 |
|
nutranurse posted:I've always wanted to ask a libertarian this (but I know few in real life because they're crazy fuckers and tend to be racist): Why would a minority want to forgo government protection of their rights in order to embrace the libertarian "get government out of everything so I can be a feudal lord" creed? I think it's an important question, as demographics begin to skew more in favor of non-whites libertarians will have to convince non-whites that their policies will actually benefit the traditionally disenfranchised. I don't think Libertarians really get to this point. At best, you get people like Rand Paul going to Howard University and other historically-black colleges and asking them "DID YOU KNOW LINCOLN WAS A REPUBLICAN TOO? ". It's because they know Libertarianism doesn't work for minorities and blaagh people. Also at the idea of a Libertarian genuinely caring about the disenfranchised. Don't you know they're bums and welfare mooches that need to be ground into paste to provide for the nutrition of the future captains of industry??? Look at you talking about benefiting the disenfranchised, that's hippie talk right there. What are you, some kind of tax-dollar thieving socialist? Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 03:55 on May 27, 2014 |
# ? May 27, 2014 03:52 |