|
Jrodefeld, here's a single, straightforward question: Do you believe that (the preservation of) personal property (such as cars, TVs, et cetera) is more important than human life? Yes or no?
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Do you believe that (the preservation of) personal property (such as cars, TVs, et cetera) is more important than human life? Yes or no? Trick question: humans are personal property (just ask Murray Rothbard). 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
ahaha laffo he's doing the same thing he does every time where he goes through every single post excruciatingly slowly and also ignores any posts that would be difficult to answer. The dude's ideology is sociopathy that places defending the property rights of whoever's in power over human compassion or morality in every single instance. Basically kill yourself if you actually believe what you're saying and aren't an Andy Kauffman style troll
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Rothbard was responding to calls from liberal intellectuals at the time who were advocating that we cut off all economic trade with Apartheid nations. Rothbard is saying that that would accomplish very little and would make conditions even worse for blacks in those countries. The Apartheid system can and should be overturned through violent revolt. But that doesn't mean that the United States military has to take it upon themselves to commit the violence. Luckily divestment doesn't mean invasion. Also, divestment worked (in conjunction with violent action by MK). So, you know, seems he was wrong!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, please explain something to me. Why have free markets turned out so spectacularly poorly in the past 30 years (and further back, but let's focus there for now)? In particular I am thinking of the former USSR, where market liberalization obviously and immediately damaged economies throughout the Eastern Bloc. If free markets provide such an advantage to the people over the rich compared to the US system, why has the result of their imposition almost always been economic neocolonialism by the West, whose decidedly non-free-market economies exploit the newly "laissez-faire" economies and essentially loot them? Why do IMF loans that come with all of those austerity and market liberalization stipulations almost always turn out to be disasters for the country receiving them? In short, why is the free market imposed as a mechanism of imperialism if it is so beneficial? Jazerus fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Well because the government still exists silly! Once we totally rid our selves of statist coercion such as "laws" and embrace our inner Mad Max then the glorious market will blast us all into superland!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
SodomyGoat101 posted:You specifically said that people that called Rothbard out for advocating slavery were wrong. They weren't, obviously, and him being wrong for saying it doesn't actually make it incorrect that he did advocate slavery. It's not slavery. If parents having authority over children is akin to slavery, then all children are slaves since their parents set rules that they are supposed to abide by. If a five year old supposedly asserts his self ownership by running away, should the parents be permitted to go get him and take him home against his will? Of course they should. A child is not a fully formed adult. Children don't have the intellectual capacity and ability to make rational decisions and it is correct for them to not have the same rights as adults. However, parents should not be permitted to use aggression against the child. And, contrary to Rothbard, the parents should not be permitted to "let the child die" by not feeding it. If I kidnap you and lock you in my basement and I refuse to provide you with food and you die, I am a murderer. A child is very much a prisoner in the home of their parents. The parents chose to bring the child into the world and they hold them as "prisoners" in a sense because a child is helpless and cannot choose to leave. Therefore refusing to feed the child is just as wrong as if I kidnapped you and refused to feed you. But let's suppose that adults who wanted to adopt a child were willing to pay a pregnant mother to carry the baby to term so they could adopt it. Is this slavery? Are they buying the baby as "property"? Obviously not. They are paying the mother to carry the baby to term when she otherwise would have an abortion. They are paying to be given the right of guardianship over the child. Since the child is not legally considered "property" at all, and is instead a developing human being with rights then this cannot be seen as slavery at all. You are playing a game of "gotcha" on issues that are very complicated and nuanced. Instead of conceding this fact and recognizing the real debate among libertarians regarding children, adoption, abortion and rights, you are just trying to discredit Rothbard by any means possible. It is disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
I'm going to ask you again, Jrodefeld: Do you believe that (the preservation of) personal property (such as cars, TVs, et cetera) is more important than human life? Yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
The stupidest thing about libertarians and especially an-caps is that modern economics wouldn't exist without the stability provided by states. Ultimately it seems like libertarians are just mad that there are already established economic systems that require effort, time, and extensive knowledge to enter successfully so they just want to destroy the current system so they can have an easier chance at becoming captains of industry. In the case of a stateless society this would not be the result since the people that banded together first would easily overpower any people trying to get by individually. Although considering most libertarians are hypocrites/sociopaths they would probably just try to be the rulers/upper class of these new states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It's not slavery. If parents having authority over children is akin to slavery, then all children are slaves since their parents set rules that they are supposed to abide by. If a five year old supposedly asserts his self ownership by running away, should the parents be permitted to go get him and take him home against his will? Of course they should. A child is not a fully formed adult. Children don't have the intellectual capacity and ability to make rational decisions and it is correct for them to not have the same rights as adults. Ah, discussion of rights without discussion of responsibilities. Of course children are "kind of like" the slaves of their parents. That's a great way to discuss the nuanced and complicated issue of childrearing. E: Answer the next post's question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
I really mean it, guys - stop giving him distractions from answering the question I was asking, that being: Jrodefeld: Do you believe that (the preservation of) personal property (such as cars, TVs, et cetera) is more important than human life? Yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Why isn't slavery allowed under a libertarian system?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:I really mean it, guys - stop giving him distractions from answering the question I was asking, that being: You know he's not gonna answer, right? He doesn't address questions he finds difficult to answer. Either that or you'll just get a long-winded, vaguely related copypaste from some other source that "explains" his stance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:I really mean it, guys - stop giving him distractions from answering the question I was asking, that being: Personal property is a result of a stable society that generally tries to preserve its inhabitants. Likewise rights are a human invention and only exist as long as their is some sort of state to protect and enforce them, otherwise all bets are off and anyone can gently caress anyone over. Any sane (or even most insane) people will value self preservation over property rights which is one of many reasons why states always form in stateless societies. Anyone who believes property rights are more important than human life are probably sociopaths. Cnidaria fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
If we only ask questions he doesn't want to/can't answer, maybe we can make him re-evaluate himseaahahahahhahahahhaha But hey, it's worth asking anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
So, what exactly prevents me and other moneyed interests from creating a State in your Libertopian world and just incrementally annexing everything that doesn't join willingly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
I want to read your answer to this, J-Rod:DoctorWhat posted:Do you believe that (the preservation of) personal property (such as cars, TVs, et cetera) is more important than human life? Yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm going to focus on the charge of racism that you made towards the libertarians "because this is an issue that I feel comfortable discussing and I have no counterarguments for anything else" Surely I'm not the only one who has notices that you refuse to discuss anything except for accusations made toward specific libertarians. Any real criticism of your retarded libertarian philosophy has been completely ignored.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Exchanging a living human being for money isn't slavery, it's something else because reasons. STOP PICKING ON ROTHBARD
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm going to focus on the charge of racism that you made towards the libertarians. Most of what you wrote is completely false or at least misleading. But I'll focus on Hans Hermann Hoppe for the moment. You are aware that you just replied to my series of connections between libertarian thinkers and racism/racists by saying that "You'll get to it" followed by a single link to a Hans Hermann Hoppe appologizer and then called it a day. You're not saying anything in your own words, you aren't arguing a point you're just pointing to what someone else said and going 'nuh uh'! But you know what, I've got time, lets talk about Triple H briefly and specifically. I am still eager to hear your view on all the other racist thinkers I've mentioned by the way. We've already talked about the private covenant bullshit, and I'll get back to why you are wrong on that (within this post even!) but first lets talk about immigration, another example of why Hoppe is a racist gently caress. In this article HHH talks about what he thinks would be a proper immigration system. His general view on this in a 'perfect' world is his same as the private covenant version, which is that any private property owner, or group of private property owners (covenant) should be able to exclude anyone, for any reason. Don't like black people, you don't have to deal with black people. Don't like Jews, then gently caress right off you dirty jews. This should be pretty abhorent on its face. The idea that we should go back to a state of being where segregation based on cultural, religious, or racial norms is disgusting but is in fact what Hoppe openly calls for. In an interview with Hans Herman Hoppe he had this to say: quote:I don't think that we, in the Western world, can go back to clans and tribes. The modern, democratic state has destroyed clans and tribes and their hierarchical structures, because they stood in the way of the state's drive toward absolute power. With clans and tribes gone, we must try it with the model of a private law-society that I have described. But wherever traditional, hierarchical clan and tribe structures still exist, they should be supported; and attempts to "modernize" "archaic" justice systems along Western lines should be viewed with utmost suspicion. This is a man who supports and encourages humanity to return to a loving tribal state. That rather than coming together as a race we should literally go back to tribal life style, or failing that, a private law society that accomplishes much the same thing. However, he acknowledges that this isn't really possible, because nearly everyone thinks it is retarded. So what is his (racist) view on how the US should handle immigration? quote:What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the "nature" of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility. Again, these are his words, not mine. This is Hans Hermann Hoppe's suggested immigration policy for the United States and western europe, and it basically amounts to putting up a sign on the statue of liberty that says "Whites only." So Jrodefeld, tell me how Hans Hermann Hoppe is not in fact basing a lot of his beliefs on racist exclusionary beliefs. I'm not even touching the fact that he thinks that Non-Europeans will have 'superior' intelligence since I hope to god (but doubt) that he means they went to better schools. And now, because I'm awesome like that, I'm going to touch on the private covenant thing. If you recall, in our last thread we had a big discussion where I explained the social contract to you. I know you read it because you replied to it in the same post where you tried to tell me that my friend dying of cancer because she couldn't afford treatment had nothing to do with free market healthcare being garbage. Now what you probably missed what with your computer crash was a later discussion about these private covenants and how they interact with and have their own social contracts. I'm going to try and reproduce it. My first question, Jrodefeld, is what is the difference between a private covenant and a government? I'm curious about your answer, because as far as I can tell the difference is 'scale'. A private covenant, as far as I can tell is functionally no different from a 'small' government. I say 'small' because there aren't actually any hard and fast limits on the size of these in Hoppe's writings. Its assumed they'd be small, but there are pretty big advantages to scale. Private covenants would have the power to tax, though this would be 'voluntary' taxation. As an example, if they covenant needed some sort of defense, say an army, they could request money from everyone to pay for it. If it is the consensus of the covenant (land owners) that they need this army, then anyone who chooses not to pay could be removed from the covenant, since the rest of the covenant could tell them to gently caress right off. So they have taxation. They probably have some form of leadership, HHH calls these the natural social elite (a very ubermensch term if I do say so myself) and the leadership would depend mostly on who owned what. You own land, you get to make decisions. You rent land, well then you are at the whims of the natural social elite (hereafter referred to as 'king'). Clearly they have social norms, that is something Hoppe talks about extensively. This means that they have laws in some form or another, be it by DRO or some other fashion. You break the laws, you suffer the punishment... same as any 'state' anywhere. Of course these laws can also include 'being black' but who cares about that right? They have taxation, they have leaders, they have laws... what else? Well they have a social contract. Before you  at me, listen.Lets say I am a member of this covenant and I have a child. Is the child a member of the covenant upon birth? I think the answer would pretty much have to be yes, which means that I am implicitly agreeing on the child's behalf that the child will obey all the laws and obligations of a covenant (state) member. Do you remember that word? Implicitly. The fact that the child is staying in the covenant means that I am implying in fact that I agree on their behalf that they will do this, the same as I could sign a contract for a movie deal for a child star. When they turn 18, they are now their own person. The Covenant might have an actual literal Social Contract that everyone signs upon reaching majority, but I suspect that it would be no different than our society, that a person reaching majority would be expected to follow the rules, pay their 'voluntary' taxes. Hoppe's private covenants are a State by any other name. They cloak themselves in this idea that everything will be voluntary, but the end result will still be follow the norms set by The King/The council/The majority/The God Emperor or leave. The only difference is in scale and the fact that rather than have power be divided democratically they will have it be done by property. If you have another difference I would be interested in hearing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:If we only ask questions he doesn't want to/can't answer, maybe we can make him re-evaluate himseaahahahahhahahahhaha Yeah....he'll just go away, then come back later and start the whole thing over again, unchanged. I imagine JRod as a little battery-powered toy robot, banging slowly against the wall. You try to gently turn it around and point it another way and it just eventually wheels right back around and starts ramming face-first into the wall again. "LOGIC-REASON-FREE MARKET-NATURAL CORRECTIONS" it buzzes, banging away at the brick wall that is this forum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Libertarianism permits me to kill a man and press his wife and children into slavery. Yes, this is a violation of the nonaggression principle. But who's going to stop me? If the local privatized police forces attempt to come after me, then I can just bribe them to look the other way because there's no governing body that would punish them for accepting bribes. If on a personal basis they won't accept bribes, then I can just go somewhere beyond their jurisdiction. Libertarians know that this is true, but they don't care because they want a world where they can steal, rape, and murder without repercussions. They imagine that they won't be the victims, so it's okay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Here is my question for libertarians: Who the gently caress would want to live in a libertarian society? It sure isn't the general populace who favor stability over absolute personal freedom since they, like me, would like to live in a society where they can easily acquire food, other necessities, and have some form of general security. It definitely isn't the upper class or corporations either since they have a vested interest in the status quo. Ultimately only libertarians think they would want to live in a stateless society but I'm sure most of them would flee to the nearest new state that is forming if we ever reached a point where the government disappeared.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:As for the supposed libertarian "support" for Apartheid, there is absolutely no libertarian justification for it whatsoever. Again, you might notice something about this post. I do. You posted four lines of text, and a link to something Murray Rothbard posted and claimed victory. Lets see where you went wrong. First and foremost, you are again missing my point. My point isn't that your flavor of Libertarian philosophy is racist, its that racism pervades the ideology as a whole, and nearly any public libertarian figure you can mention has made some inflamatory and racist statements, or can be easily linked to someone who has made those statements. I am not saying that every single libertarian ever promoted Apartheid or that it is an easy to logic libertarian position. I am saying that major public figures in the libertarian movement actively promoted and encouraged apartheid. These are the people who are molding your ideology. These are the people you are quoting, the people you are citing. That should concern you, because they are the face of your ideology. You aren't racist, but I guarantee you that much of say... the US libertarian party has racist, racist tendencies. Again, these were not 'a few' quotes from some obscure publication. This was a series of major articles in the flagship libertarian publication for the better part of a decade. During the worst of the Apartheid excesses Reason magazine was on the wrong side of the issue and the wrong side of history in direct support of Apartheid. Moreover, Reason magazine also published a 'special issue' in the 1970's filled to the brim with support for holocaust denial. And again, this was not from obscure thinkers, this was from men directly connected with current libertarian darlings such as the Koch brothers, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and others. You are the outlier Jrodefeld. You are not (I hope) racist. The overall Libertarian movement is. Finally, to your link. Others have already covered much of it but I'll still chime in. That article is not as profound or as 'good' as you think it is. As others have already pointed out, Murray Rothbard was wrong. Aparthied didn't end because the white people decided to give the blacks more money after getting massive investment. It ended because of the world became so disgusted with South Africa that we imposed heavy sanctions that along with local pressures made the Status Quo untenable. Murray Rothbard was wrong on the issue, and his attitude is a paternalistic one. If we just keep giving them money eventually the blacks will better themselves and we will have peace was the standard conservative byline of the age, which isn't surprising considering that Murray Rothbard supported The Bell Curve otherwise known as "That book that talks about how black people are genetically dumber than white folk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:The stupidest thing about libertarians and especially an-caps is that modern economics wouldn't exist without the stability provided by states. Ultimately it seems like libertarians are just mad that there are already established economic systems that require effort, time, and extensive knowledge to enter successfully so they just want to destroy the current system so they can have an easier chance at becoming captains of industry. In the case of a stateless society this would not be the result since the people that banded together first would easily overpower any people trying to get by individually. Although considering most libertarians are hypocrites/sociopaths they would probably just try to be the rulers/upper class of these new states. No, "modern" economies wouldn't exist in their current state. An economy would exist and it would look quite different than the one we currently have. Human prosperity is likely to be considerably higher because so much of the productive capacity of the populace would not be squandered on State bureaucracy and regulatory overhead. We would not suffer from inflation and paper money, the time preference of society would be low and thus we would be more future oriented. The reason why libertarians want an anarchist society is that we don't believe in the initiation of violence against peaceful people. We want society to evolve based on voluntary transactions and cooperation. We want the law and security services to use violence only to defend person or property or to compel restitution to the victim(s) of aggression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld please respond to DoctorWhat's question:DoctorWhat posted:Do you believe that (the preservation of) personal property (such as cars, TVs, et cetera) is more important than human life? Yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No, "modern" economies wouldn't exist in their current state. An economy would exist and it would look quite different than the one we currently have. Human prosperity is likely to be considerably higher because so much of the productive capacity of the populace would not be squandered on State bureaucracy and regulatory overhead. We would not suffer from inflation and paper money, the time preference of society would be low and thus we would be more future oriented. That is a leap I feel like you can't make in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
I really love how there isn't a better refutation possible of jrodefeld's own demented ideology than jrodefeld's own posts. Others can try, but what's the point? It's like listening to someone you suspect is an anti-Semite say he wants to talk about geopolitics. It's like a gift, proudly presenting himself, the gallows he built, and his bitchin' hangman's knot, and dutifully assuming the position with a smile. J-Rod, we aren't fools for not buying your snake oil. You're the fool because you don't even realize you're selling snake oil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No, "modern" economies wouldn't exist in their current state. An economy would exist and it would look quite different than the one we currently have. Human prosperity is likely to be considerably higher because so much of the productive capacity of the populace would not be squandered on State bureaucracy and regulatory overhead. We would not suffer from inflation and paper money, the time preference of society would be low and thus we would be more future oriented. Also everyone would have unicorns. You are aware that the government, with the exception of wasteful spending such as on things like the military has a net positive effect correct? State bureaucracy is no worse than corporate bureaucracy or any other form of private investment on a large scale. Meanwhile programs like Social Security raise millions of people out of poverty. 66% of the elderly used to live in abject poverty prior to the SSA, now that number is I believe in the single digits or low tens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:I really mean it, guys - stop giving him distractions from answering the question I was asking, that being: I believe that human rights and property rights are one and the same. Your question is too vague to give a definitive answer. In what way would the preservation of justly acquired property cause harm to human life? Are you speaking about the so-called "lifeboat scenario" where a drowning person would need to violate the property right of the lifeboat owner to save his life? Or like the example of a starving person who has to steal food to stay alive? If a starving person steals a loaf of bread, then he is indeed violating a property right. Any one of us would do the same thing if our life was on the line. And I would gladly pay the store owner back for the value of the food stolen once I recovered from my perilous state. If the property owner is so callous as to press charges against me anyway, I would argue my case to the court. There would be serious societal backlash against the property owner who would be vindictive enough to go after a starving person who stole food in desperation to live. Social pressure would punish such action. That is the only scenario where I could see a potential conflict between property rights and human life. And even then, I don't think it is much of a conflict because how many store owners would refuse a small amount of food to a dying person? You cannot base your entire ethical and legal system on a once in a decade kind of freak occurrence. If you have a more specific example of what you are talking about, let me know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Why isn't slavery allowed under a libertarian system? It violates self ownership. Rothbard: quote:A man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced—for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else’s benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of “voluntary slavery” is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Why isn't slavery allowed under a libertarian system? It is, as long as you sell yourself or your children into it. Hoppe supports it
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The reason why libertarians want an anarchist society is that we don't believe in the initiation of violence against peaceful people. We want society to evolve based on voluntary transactions and cooperation. We want the law and security services to use violence only to defend person or property or to compel restitution to the victim(s) of aggression. You ignored my whole excellent post which everyone should read. Let me rephrase a key point more succinctly: defending people and especially property sometimes requires the initiation of violence against peaceful people. You cannot resolve this contradiction without either accepting that the initiation of violence is necessary and ok sometimes, or that defending people and/or property is not as important as never initiating violence. Which is it gonna be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No, "modern" economies wouldn't exist in their current state. An economy would exist and it would look quite different than the one we currently have. Human prosperity is likely to be considerably higher because so much of the productive capacity of the populace would not be squandered on State bureaucracy and regulatory overhead. We would not suffer from inflation and paper money, the time preference of society would be low and thus we would be more future oriented. Holy poo poo I was just waiting for inflation to be brought up since libertarians/bitcoiners seem to think it's the devil. To address your earlier points bureaucracy is necessary to maintain any society with a large population size and regulation is absolutely necessary to maintain any economic system or else they would quickly burn out. Inflation is also required for an economic system to exists since it requires consumers and without inflation it collapses immediately since consumption/investment rapidly drops such as the great depression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I believe that human rights and property rights are one and the same. Your question is too vague to give a definitive answer. In what way would the preservation of justly acquired property cause harm to human life? I just so happen to have that! Refusing Cancer treatment to a sick person based on the ability to pay. In the US 63,000 people die annually due to inability to pay for medical care. These are people who have in some cases easily solvable issues such as dental abscesses that could be solved by at $10 bottle of antibiotics. They also include cases such as people who are unable to pay for lifesaving Cancer treatments that would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you believe that these people have the right to live even if it costs someone else their property. To be specific, do you believe a poor homeless man should be allowed to steal a bottle of Clindamycin to keep himself from dying of an easily preventable disease. Now I want to be clear about this, because your previous answer puts you in a precarious position and I don't wanna be all 'gotcha'. If you say yes then you are arguing one of two things: - That people can and should violate the Non-Aggression Principle in some circumstances. This means that the Non-Aggression Principle is not inviolate or universal. You are arguing in favor of moral relativism, that there are exceptions to your rule. If you believe he 'should' do this, then you are of the belief that it is a moral act. or - That this person is taking a clearly immoral act. If you truly believe that this is an immoral act then it is completely without merit, and any argument that the person responsible does not deserve to be punished to the full extent of the 'law' is hypocritical of you. Frankly you should not be supporting his taking the pills since you view him doing so to be morally wrong. Caros fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:Holy poo poo I was just waiting for inflation to be brought up since libertarians/bitcoiners seem to think it's the devil. Well it is dark magic that makes fiat money exchange for less gold so that makes sense at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It violates self ownership. The people own the present government. It must be really convenient to have no civic responsibility whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It is, as long as you sell yourself or your children into it. Hoppe supports it And it's a great thing that this libertopia will have a strong police and court system to make sure that no-one is coerced into "willingly selling" themselves into Oh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:You ignored my whole excellent post which everyone should read. Let me rephrase a key point more succinctly: defending people and especially property sometimes requires the initiation of violence against peaceful people. You cannot resolve this contradiction without either accepting that the initiation of violence is necessary and ok sometimes, or that defending people and/or property is not as important as never initiating violence. Which is it gonna be? No it doesn't. To say "defending people or property requires the initiation of violence" is a contradiction in terms. Defensive violence is not initiatory. You have to have a coherent understanding of what legitimate property rights are before you can determine what is initiatory and what is defensive violence. Defensive violence must be proportional otherwise it becomes initiatory. If you shoot someone who is trespassing on your property you are committing aggression. The act of trespass is a far less serious act of aggression than shooting someone. If you tell someone they are trespassing and you make every effort to politely ask them to leave your property, then you are justified in using force to get them to leave. This is very clear. You, as a leftist, probably don't accept that private property rights are legitimate and therefore you don't see the defense of many times of private property as defensive violence. But if you do accept that justly acquired property requires that the owner of that property be permitted to determine who can use that property and who cannot, then a trespasser who was not invited onto the property would be committing aggression. A minor aggression usually, but aggression nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I believe that human rights and property rights are one and the same. Your question is too vague to give a definitive answer. In what way would the preservation of justly acquired property cause harm to human life? I didn't ask about human RIGHTS, I asked about human LIFE. quote:Are you speaking about the so-called "lifeboat scenario" where a drowning person would need to violate the property right of the lifeboat owner to save his life? Or like the example of a starving person who has to steal food to stay alive? If a starving person steals a loaf of bread, then he is indeed violating a property right. Any one of us would do the same thing if our life was on the line. And I would gladly pay the store owner back for the value of the food stolen once I recovered from my perilous state. If the property owner is so callous as to press charges against me anyway, I would argue my case to the court. In your stateless libertarian society, what court? Whose court? The shopowner's court? What if the "callous" property owner, acting in their economic self-interest in order to scare future shoplifters from doing as you did, bribes the court in order to make an example of you - and, in their own economic self-interest, the judge/juror(s)/arbitrator accepts that bribe(s)? What is your recourse? quote:There would be serious societal backlash against the property owner who would be vindictive enough to go after a starving person who stole food in desperation to live. Social pressure would punish such action. What if the "property owner" was sufficiently wealthy that they could influence all forms of media to such a degree that [the starving person, or even ALL impoverished people] were demonized in the public consciousness? Social pressure might, in that case, empower the vindictive "property owner" and further punish the impoverished person/people, even though their actions were justified by their right to live? Is that such a far-fetched situation? quote:That is the only scenario where I could see a potential conflict between property rights and human life. And even then, I don't think it is much of a conflict because how many store owners would refuse a small amount of food to a dying person? You cannot base your entire ethical and legal system on a once in a decade kind of freak occurrence. If you sincerely believe that starving people are denied free food by [food-havers] only "once a decade", you're very much mistaken. Just two years ago, a homeless man was strangled to death for shoplifting toothpaste from a CVS, and another woman was shot and killed by a security guard after shoplifting food and other small goods from a Wal-Mart, and ANOTHER shoplifter was killed by security guards at a DIFFERENT Wal-Mart. Three times in one year is hardly "once in a decade", and the fear of death (the "threat of force") caused by these events have undoubtedly exacerbated the suffering of many more impoverished people. And another example, in the field of clothing (which is likewise critical for human survival): Abercrombie and Fitch refuses to donate unsold clothing to charity because it would rather protect its brand's aura of wealth than help poor people sleep warmly at night. H&M was doing the same thing. Those are some specific examples of private property (and even more egregiously, "brand protection") being held in higher regard than human life and safety. It happens all the time. Capitalism kills people every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:18
|
|