|
Little Blackfly posted:Of course, otherwise they'd get scammer tags. And we can totally trust the company issuing those tags, right? Because they could never, ever have an agenda or conflict of interest. No, that'd be immoral and against the libertarian code.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:54 |
|
|
# ? May 6, 2024 04:47 |
|
Little Blackfly posted:Of course, otherwise they'd get scammer tags. Unless their personal law office declared scammer tags illegal. Which it would of course have no reason to do as it isn't getting any money from the oh.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:55 |
|
CrazyTolradi posted:And we can totally trust the company issuing those tags, right? Because they could never, ever have an agenda or conflict of interest. No, that'd be immoral and against the libertarian code. Ironically, assuming anyone reading this doesn't get what the scammer tags are a reference to, that is exactly what happened on the bitcoin forums. Odd, how a group made up almost entirely of libertarians can't even manage to pull off the libertarian ideal.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 08:59 |
|
The truth is simpler than that. They wouldn't get scammer tags because they bought off whoever administers the system. Read more about this and other libertarian experiments in stupidity in the bitcoin thread. E: Oh you fucker, Tiberius Thyben. You're lucky we live in a state or I'd murder you for that. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 09:02 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not going to respond to the stuff you said about Molyneux right now. I don't want to get sucked into that diversion. quote:Many have asked about the feasibility of competing defense agencies and private dispute resolution agencies. You seem to think that we need a centralized monopolistic authority to provide "the law". I think this is a very dangerous concept that, as history has proven, is rife with abuse. I know some of you hate when I do this, but I am going to quote from Stefan Molyneux on this subject. I don't always agree with Molyneux but in this instance I think his insights are valuable. This isn't the final word, but I think it offers plenty of food for thought: Fair enough. But I will say that I suggest you stop using sources like him if you don't want to get into derails. Sourcing Stephan Molyneux will inevitably lead to people looking into him, and the moment they do they are going to start asking questions as to how you can support a blatant, unapologetic misogynist. As to how much we hate him? I hate Mr. Molyneux as much as he seems to hate women. Take that as you will. quote:I'll say that I do know about Reason Magazine. They are not my favorites to say the least. I am not particularly a fan of any of the Koch funded libertarian outlets. Some of the Reason people do good work but I don't read them usually. It was a "weird bit of grammer failure". I know Reason Magazine. I don't know about the "Pro apartheid" or holocaust denial articles that were published in the 1970s. That is what I meant to say. I wasn't born when these articles were published. It may be true that they gave a platform to some hateful people. I don't think its fair to judge Reason magazine today for some stupid article they published forty years ago though. Everyone makes mistakes, I just wanted to be clear on whether it was a mistake. Glad to hear it was. And it is entirely fair to judge Reason magazine on this issue. They have been presented with the fact that they did this, and do you know what their response was? It was a lot like yours on Hoppe actually. Rather than just admitting that yeah, they published a special issue on anti-semitism, they tried to argue and pretend and make excuses for what they did. They did this because many of the same people who wrote that issue are still on their board or involved in other forms of editorial control. Reason is still staffed by many of the same people who thought that a Holocaust denial, pro-apartheid stance was the way to take. Much like the libertarian party writ large. quote:I already wrote two posts about criminal justice but I'd rather talk about Gary Chartier for a minute. Yes, I think he could be considered a "left" libertarian, but I've read his work and our views are not that far apart. He calls himself an anarchist and he wrote a recent book called "The Conscience of an Anarchist". He did indeed abandon libertarianism to join the left proper for a decade or so but he is one of us again and he does use that experience to sell libertarian ideas to those on the left. The fact that libertarians compliment him does not mean anything to me considering that earlier in the thread you talked about a socialist who's ideas you associate yourself with despite all logic in it. Gary Chartier is an anarchist, but not one who believes in your view on say... property rights for example. Or self ownership. Or the Non-Aggression Principle. If he doesn't agree with you on these basic concepts then using him as an example of someone prominent in your ideology is sort of... wrong. Now on to my questions. You've posted a DRO example from Stefan Molyneux, so allow me to post one back. You've probably seen it before in the last thread at least: quote:After Lew was kind enough to publish The Stateless Society, I received many emails asking the same question: how can violent criminals be dealt with in the absence of a centralized government? Define voluntary for me Jrod, and explain what the difference between "you must pay your taxes to live in our society" and "you must pay one of these private entities simply to live." quote:However, DROs as a whole really need to keep track of people who have opted out of the entire DRO system, since those people have clearly signaled their intention to go rogue, to live off the grid, and commit crimes. Or that you are too poor. Keep in mind that you REQUIRE this service to live, and there is no progressive taxation suggested for people who are too poor. quote:What happens then? Remember there is no public property in the stateless society. If you've gone rogue, where are you going to go? You can't take a bus bus companies won't take rogues, because their DRO will require that they take only DRO-covered passengers, in case of injury or altercation. Scan your ID card to get on the bus citizen. What is this 'privacy' garbage you speak of. The DROverlords must know who you are for you to ride this bus. quote:So you have to get off the street. Where do you go? All the local street owners have been notified of your presence, and refuse you entrance. You can't go anywhere without trespassing. You are a pariah. No one will help you, or give you food, or shelter you because if they do, their DRO will boot them or raise their rates, and their name will be entered into a database of people who help rogues. There is literally no place to turn. Your DRO coverage lapsed because of problems with direct deposit? WELCOME TO loving THUNDERDOME BITCHES! Alternately, your DRO coverage has lapsed, so the DRO companies won't deal with you because they don't deal with rogues. Limbo is a bitch. quote:it has probably been voice-encoded or protected in some other manner against unauthorized re-use Literally the only reason we don't have this now is because we don't live in a perfect free market. It has nothing do do with people using old products. Or the cost of voice recognition software in a loving blender. quote:Will there be underground markets? No where would they operate? People need a place to live, cars to rent, clothes to buy, groceries to eat. No DRO means no participation in economic life. The only markets are DRO approved markets. Your garage sale is in violation of our DRO agreement rogue. You are now fair bounty as part of our new program 'Professor Genki's Super Ethical Reality Climax'. quote:But let's say that only the murderous husband planning to kill his wife opted out of his DRO system without telling her. Well, the first thing that his wife's DRO system would do is inform her of her husband's action and the ill intent it may represent and help relocate her if desired. If she decided against relocation, her DRO would promptly drop her, since by deciding to live in close proximity with a rogue man, she was exposing herself to an untenable amount of danger (and so the DRO to a high risk for financial loss!). This right here is pinnacle loving retarded. Ma'am your husband is going to kill you, you need to give up on your entire life and move where we tell you to or we will drop you from coverage and you will die starving and alone in the sewers assuming that no one shoots you for trespassing before then. Yeah, you get the idea. In this suggested world, which by the way is the revised version of what you posted earlier Jrod, lacking DRO coverage is equitable to death. If for any reason you do not have coverage you have no rights. You are subhuman. There will be no homeless people in libertopia because if there were they would starve to death almost instantaneously. So please, give me your review. I'm eager!
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 09:13 |
|
So, basically DRO's are more controlling over our freedoms than a State is? Good to know. Lol jrodefeld, you literally posted an entire explanation of how you're not free at all, but totally under the mercy of the DRO system. Good work in destroying your own philosophy. Talk about an own goal.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 09:39 |
|
You know, I've never actually read much ancap stuff, on the basis that the whole idea sounded even more awful and absurd than the Objectivism I'd already rejected. This Molyneux guy is pretty much the best thing I've read in a while. It's someone seriously advocating a brutal nightmare dystopia. He doesn't even hide it; he's proud of it. I never thought I'd find a group for whom this was true, but: anarcho-capitalists are even dumber and more naive than objectivists. That's impressive.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 09:41 |
|
isildur posted:You know, I've never actually read much ancap stuff, on the basis that the whole idea sounded even more awful and absurd than the Objectivism I'd already rejected. The bizzare thing to me is that they don't see it. I guarantee you that Jrodefeld is going to come back and if he says anything on the topic at all its going to be that I'm totally wrong, and that the essay there is not a full throated suggestion of a totalitarian nightmare, because people 'voluntarily' choose to do business with these companies.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 09:47 |
|
Caros posted:The bizzare thing to me is that they don't see it. I guarantee you that Jrodefeld is going to come back and if he says anything on the topic at all its going to be that I'm totally wrong, and that the essay there is not a full throated suggestion of a totalitarian nightmare, because people 'voluntarily' choose to do business with these companies. And that he's won the argument and he's leaving the thread again and he doesn't want to see the issue brought up ever again because he doesn't want to deal with it.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 09:51 |
|
Caros posted:The bizzare thing to me is that they don't see it. I guarantee you that Jrodefeld is going to come back and if he says anything on the topic at all its going to be that I'm totally wrong, and that the essay there is not a full throated suggestion of a totalitarian nightmare, because people 'voluntarily' choose to do business with these companies. I "choose" to deal with DRO's because I like not starving and dying on land no one else owns (because I'm not allowed on private streets/property anymore). Oh wait, what land no one else owns?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 09:51 |
|
Caros posted:The bizzare thing to me is that they don't see it. Ayn Rand posted:Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to shop and to patronize whatever government he chooses.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 09:55 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I am a libertarian market anarchist. I believe in individual self ownership. What that means is that each of us have the right to determine the use of the scarce resource in our physical bodies. If we have a property right in our own bodies, then we should not have the right to use aggression against the physical body of another. For example, assault, rape and kidnapping are obviously illegitimate violations of self ownership. All civilized people accept the principle, I believe. In fact, I consider it an irrefutable axiom. The act of argumentation presupposes the right to exclusive control over ones body and mind. First, not all people accept that assault, rape, and kidnapping are violations of property rights. Second, not all people accept that property rights in one's body are axiomatic. In the first place, many people accept that assault, rape, and kidnapping are immoral for reasons that don't involve property rights. For example, utilitarians maintain that prohibitions on assault, rape, and kidnapping are justified because such actions usually cause suffering and hardship. Even if such actions as assault, rape, and kidnapping violate the principle of self-ownership, the principle of self-ownership is hardly necessary to justify a general prohibition on those actions. Thus, that such actions violate the principle of self-ownership is at most evidence that the principle is acceptable. However, it's unclear whether the principle of self-ownership entails that assault, rape, and kidnapping should be prohibited. In the first place, many libertarians have argued that property rights are alienable, meaning that common examples of rape, assault, and kidnapping are permitted whenever individuals alienate their rights through contracts or binding associations. If you wish to argue that some property rights are inalienable, then you must justify their inalienability, because inalienability conflicts with principles of free associations. In the second place, you have argued that some instances of assault are justified. For example, dispute resolution organizations employ both harm and the threat of harm in order to enforce principles of retributive justice. Thus, general prohibitions on assault, rape, and kidnapping aren't guaranteed by the principle of self-ownership. Finally, whether you consider the principle of self-ownership to be axiomatic is irrelevant. If the principle is a logical axiom, then because a majority of people disagree with libertarianism, the system postulating self-ownership must be justified. If the principle is a non-logical axiom, then libertarianism stands or falls on the basis of its consequences. Like all other axioms, the principle of self-ownership partially defines a system of reasoning in which propositions can be derived. Thus, the question is whether the principle of self-ownership should be adopted, and this question turns on whether the principle can be justified and has acceptable consequences. In other words, unless you can justify the principle of self-ownership on other grounds, you must argue that libertarianism has acceptable consequences. But we have seen that whether libertarianism has acceptable consequences is either false or incidental at best. quote:If a person owns their own body and thus has the right to make decisions about how they use it, then how can they justly acquire property outside of their physical body? The libertarian argues that the only just way to acquire property is through homesteading of previously unowned or unused natural resources, otherwise known as original appropriation. If you own your physical body, then if you mix your labor with natural land then that which you transformed becomes in essence an extension of yourself and becomes your property. If you are a frontiersman and you come across previously unowned and unused natural land and you build a house, build a fence, graze cattle and plant crops, then that which you altered through your labor becomes your property. That is, no one has a better claim to maintain final decision making authority over that scarce resource than you. That nobody has "...a better claim to maintain final decision making authority over that scarce resource than you" doesn't follow from the theory of distributive justice outlined above. The point of entitlement theories of distributive justice is precisely that historical claims supersede other normative claims on holdings. Thus, you must mean that claims are better whenever they are justly acquired through a series of just transactions terminating in just acts of original appropriation. Ignoring the problems with "labor-mixing" theories of original appropriation, outlined in preceding posts, you must justify why historical claims outweigh other normative claims on the distribution and utilization of goods. For example, suppose that I acquire a piece of unused and previously unowned land containing vast deposits of rare minerals. Since you haven't justified the entitlement theory of distributive justice, on what basis do I acquire better authority regrading the utilization and distribution of those minerals than others - perhaps experts or community or government organizations? There is no guarantee that entitlement theories of distributive justice coincide with other normative theories regarding the best distribution and utilization of goods. Your entire argument is circular. My two cents. Also I'm a little drunk, so sorry if I'm a little belligerent. quickly fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 10:11 |
|
CrazyTolradi posted:So, basically DRO's are more controlling over our freedoms than a State is? Good to know. And not just a little more controlling, but way more controlling. The idea is basically to have a state that can monitor everyone at all times in order to enforce free market principles, but of course the state won't be allowed to violate those principles (why not? Because). This is anarchy because the agencies that govern every aspect of your life aren't called governments
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 10:18 |
|
QuarkJets posted:And not just a little more controlling, but way more controlling. The idea is basically to have a state that can monitor everyone at all times in order to enforce free market principles, but of course the state won't be allowed to violate those principles (why not? Because). This is anarchy because the agencies that govern every aspect of your life aren't called governments I love how the example that they give included surveillance, but it's totes okay when my
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 10:46 |
|
IDK guys this DRO society sounds very cold and logical, perfect for my feeble reptile brain.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:03 |
|
Axetrain posted:It's been said before but I'm starting to be sure that when it boils down to it that Libertarians are fine with taxation/government force, they are just upset that said taxes aren't just going straight into their bank accounts. It does seem like Libertarians don't really have a problem with someone having a "monopoly on force" per se, just that it happens to be "the state" that's wielding it and not a private company and not them. On Stefan Molyneux:
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:07 |
|
I love how the solution in every Libertarian fanfic scenario is to "start your own competing ______".
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:10 |
|
Oh wow. That's a hell of a cat to let out of a bag, isn't it?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:12 |
|
D_I posted:I love how the solution in every Libertarian fanfic scenario is to "start your own competing ______". What's even funnier is that it's usually some sort of major industrial/commercial venture. The kind of thing that demands you prostrate yourself before wealthy investors and be a good little whore to repay them for the next 40 years to see your dream take off, because of how expensive such ventures are. Or they just somehow magically manage to make it work despite lacking investors and requiring enough money that could just as easily be used to buy a small African nation.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:18 |
|
The idea that anyone could look at the insurance industry and go "mm, yes, more of this please" is mindboggling,
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:23 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
But don't worry---there will be absolutely no criminal fraud or deception in Libertopia! (Because it's only a crime if the local Freeman of the International Protection Agency declares it so.)
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:24 |
|
Verus posted:But don't worry---there will be absolutely no criminal fraud or deception in Libertopia! No, the fraud and deception will be taken care of by damaging the reputation of the person engaging in it. For example, now that Jrod knows that Molyneux fraudulently uses sockpuppets to support himself, he won't be trusted or used as a source anymore.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:26 |
|
Friends don't let friends become rogues. Check in with your local DRO representative if you have crossed paths with a rogue. Don't forget your fees are due at the end of the month, failure of payment may result with your expulsion from the community. Reminder: this is not a totalitarian state, for you have entered into a contract. Have a prosperous day fellow Entrepenuer.
D_I fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:26 |
|
EVE Online is a good example of what happens when libertarianism runs wild. Stealing poo poo that belongs to other people is what everyone does, and war chiefs rise and collapse in extreme violence all the time. As time goes on, people start banding together and creating non-libertarian governments, usually monarchies but Goonswarm decided to form a communist coalition just because it made all of the little libertarian try-hards mad. This was so successful that they're now the leading alliance in the game, owning more conquerable space than anyone else. It turns out that lovely little inter-squabbling libertarian poo poo-holes are no match against a well-organized state. It turns out that people are lovely. People scam and cheat each other even if they gain nothing from doing so. When your philosophy relies on everyone being an economically motivated perfectly rational actor who opposes violence, you've already made so many flawed assumptions that any ideas springing from those assumptions will have no relevance in our world. This is libertarianism, and it is loving stupid. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:32 |
|
QuarkJets posted:It turns out that people are lovely. People scam and cheat each other even if they gain nothing from doing so. This I might actually argue. I don't think it necessarily true that people as a generalization are lovely, it's just that the ones who ARE lovely are the ones that will encourage others to be lovely and will invariably be the ones who rise to the top of the shitlists by being bastards. They have strong incentives to do that, because it validates their existence. ..So, libertarians basically. But y'know I'm one of those religious hippie types who believes most people are inherently halfway decent, so take that with a grain of salt big enough to bludgeon a man to death with.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:35 |
|
If a single person is lovely and doesn't act in perfect economic self-interest then the libertarian model has already failed. And it turns out that a lot of people are lovely
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:36 |
|
Even if relatively few people are true jackasses, some of them have a knack for ending up in positions of power to poo poo things up for the middle of the road apathetic citizen.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 11:57 |
|
QuarkJets posted:If a single person is lovely and doesn't act in perfect economic self-interest then the libertarian model has already failed. And it turns out that a lot of people are lovely America is full of people trying to play the "Freemen on the Land" card in our court system, and the court system absorbs the hit and moves on, punishing the idiots for their idiocy in the process. That is because it is a system designed specifically to deal with outlying cases and dumb fuckers trying to exploit the foibles of the system. We have entire cities full of people whose jobs are to think really hard about ways people will exploit our existing systems and figure out ways to either justify that exploitation or prevent it. We have entire industries made up of people who have done nothing with their lives but learn the labyrinthine subsystems- subsystems that we have put in place to prevent people loving with the system- so well that they can freely dance through it without a single penalty. And the system accounts for these people too. It checks their power. It is loving robust. From what we've seen in this thread, a libertopia- whether an exploitative one or a benign one- would fall if a single guy decided not to play along and nod and smile and act as a perfectly informed perfectly rational individual. Which would happen, because everyone has a 'gently caress the system' gene in them somewhere, and some small part of all of us wants to see what happens when the five thousand cards in this carefully balanced house come tumbling down.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 12:06 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I am going to assume that you all agree with me that people should be free from aggression against their physical bodies. That people own themselves and that others cannot murder, rape or kidnap another. If you concede this point, and you also concede that desired resources are scarce, then you logically must defend some sort of property rights system. The reason to support private property rights is that we want to reduce conflict in society. If everyone has a clear understanding of who has the final say over the use of a scarce resource, conflict is minimized. Furthermore, being secure in the things that you homestead, i.e. having the right to defend that property that you have acquired, means that society can become more prosperous and produce more and more which benefits all members of society. This is hopeless. Yes, it is good for everyone to have a clear understanding about who controls what. No, that doesn't imply anything about who should control what - let alone that all control over resources should belong to unelected people, upon whose land the rest of us have no right to tread. You have not even begun to justify private property rights here. quote:I cannot see any other rational principle by which a person can acquire property legitimately than the principle of original appropriation or homesteading. I do not think that that is a rational principle at all - it irrationally fetishizes 'firstness', as well as relying on terrible metaphors and vague definitions. If you and I are racing to grab a piece of unowned land, and just before you get there I manage to chuck some of my urine on it, so that a creation of mine has been 'mixed' with the soil - how on earth does that, rationally, make me a better person to decide what should happen to the land, and give me the right to order you off it? And how does allocating property via your homesteading principle reduce conflict? Of course I may explain clearly to everyone that the land is mine, because I have laboured to mix my pee with it; and the vast non-libertarian majority will still dispute my claim, because it is barking mad. So all your claim about reducing conflict boils down to is this: that if we all agreed about how property should be allocated, we would all agree. As for another 'rational' principle - wouldn't it be better to try to get the maximum possible benefit from our resources? This would probably allow total private control of some resources - staplers, for example - and forbid it for others (land, uranium mines, etc). We could even have some clearly understood system of elections to determine who has the final say over a resource!
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 12:40 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Goonswarm decided to form a communist coalition just because it made all of the little libertarian try-hards mad. This was so successful that they're now the leading alliance in the game, owning more conquerable space than anyone else. Eh, Goonswarm itself only controls a portion of actual null, but via the CFC and rented out space, controls about 1/3rd of conquerable sov. EVE itself is a great idea of what happens when people are thrown into an environment and have little to no restriction on interactions. Market manipulation and scamming are common place and you can't trust even your best friend. There is still some level of intervention from the game devs, however, and some restriction on market place (some good aren't player generated/made for instance) so it isn't a perfect example of a liberatarian utopia, but it does show a good degree of core human nature, which is to lie, cheat and steal. Also, if libertarians are disturbed by the State watching and gathering information on them, how the hell can they forward the concept of a DRO and be totally ok with a group that is actively watching them and giving out information they gather freely to other private companies. CrazyTolradi fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Aug 11, 2014 |
# ? Aug 11, 2014 13:02 |
|
CrazyTolradi posted:
I am again inclined to disagree that it demonstrates the "core human nature" very well- one must remember that in EVE you have no obligations outside of those to yourself. Like, tangibly so. Nobody gets married, has kids, raises actual civilizations, commits permanent murder, poo poo like that. Cheating and stealing pretty much always benefits you personally in the game. You are incentivized to do so at all times because the worst repercussions are "you get banned, you go buy a new account." I might be quibbling I admit but I feel it necessary to point that out because otherwise I fear we would be encouraging the notion that people are just naturally selfish and bad, which.. Well outside of my personal beliefs, it encourages the sort of belief that those who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand espouse like so many broken records and noisy parrots.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 13:40 |
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:I am again inclined to disagree that it demonstrates the "core human nature" very well- one must remember that in EVE you have no obligations outside of those to yourself. Like, tangibly so. Nobody gets married, has kids, raises actual civilizations, commits permanent murder, poo poo like that. Cheating and stealing pretty much always benefits you personally in the game. You are incentivized to do so at all times because the worst repercussions are "you get banned, you go buy a new account." I agree, and I think it's more instructive about how financial workers and the rich probably see the world. Put simply, EVE doesn't represent core humanity, it represents a world where people don't face or acknowledge the consequences of their actions, which is how the rich live now.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 15:00 |
|
Obdicut posted:No, the fraud and deception will be taken care of by damaging the reputation of the person engaging in it. For example, now that Jrod knows that Molyneux fraudulently uses sockpuppets to support himself, he won't be trusted or used as a source anymore. Let me prove with praxeology how wrong you are. The first sentence is true, as brilliantly proven by jrodefeld. If this is the case, it would be against Molyneux's rational self-interest to use sockpuppets. This is also what Molyneux believes, as he is a libertarian. Therefore he can't have used a sockpuppet. Your own eyes are conspiring with the statist vermin to deceive you. Checkmate, statards!
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 15:03 |
|
Oh dear me posted:This is hopeless. Yes, it is good for everyone to have a clear understanding about who controls what. No, that doesn't imply anything about who should control what - let alone that all control over resources should belong to unelected people, upon whose land the rest of us have no right to tread. You have not even begun to justify private property rights here. The interesting thing is that the original construction of the labour mixing argument contained the corollary that the person enclosing land has to leave as much and as good for everyone else in doing so. Like I said earlier, Locke basically relied on the big empty (but not really empty) continent that had been recently discovered to justify why this was possible. Since that really isn't an option any more, due to population alone, the corollary has been dropped. That still talk about fairness, but now only in the terms of a fair reward for labour expended. The tiny bit of distributive justice is gone.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 15:14 |
|
Gantolandon posted:Let me prove with praxeology how wrong you are. Actually, going by recent events it looks like Jrod took a page from Molybeux's playbook regarding sockpuppets in this very thread.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 15:41 |
|
Who What Now posted:Actually, going by recent events it looks like Jrod took a page from Molybeux's playbook regarding sockpuppets in this very thread. I dunno, the other guy actually has an EARLIER regdate than Jrod, so that would take a LOT of planning going back two years.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 15:43 |
|
DoctorWhat posted:I dunno, the other guy actually has an EARLIER regdate than Jrod, so that would take a LOT of planning going back two years. It's probably not a sockpuppet so much as a happy parrot who agrees wholeheartedly. "I love selfishness and money, awwwrk" *whistle*
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 15:48 |
|
Oh dear me posted:As for another 'rational' principle - wouldn't it be better to try to get the maximum possible benefit from our resources? This would probably allow total private control of some resources - staplers, for example - and forbid it for others (land, uranium mines, etc). We could even have some clearly understood system of elections to determine who has the final say over a resource! For example, individuals could disagree on which use of a forest would be considered "maximally beneficial". One might feel it should be immediately cut down and turned to lumber, another desires paper, another wants firewood more than lumber or paper. Someone else may want the trees cleared for farmland, while another may wish to see it left alone as a natural habitat, another would like it maintained as a tourist destination, and another would have it cultivated for use by a future generation. I feel that no individual or group can ever formulate an "objectively correct" answer as to what decision is the "greatest good for the greatest number". Individuals can act on their own limited information and their own ordinal economic preferences to strive for their own desired outcomes. This relates to the economic calculation problem. My understanding is that the free market, with individual ownership of property and voluntary exchange, is the system that best facilitates the allocation of resources and factors of production to satisfy the various wants of individuals, respecting their individual choices. The economic calculation problem thwarts central planning, no matter how well-intentioned or noble the central planners may be. Electing central planners democratically doesn't resolve the economic calculation problem.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 15:52 |
|
So what happens if I am a customer for a DRO that is part of one network/association/coalition of DROs, and I decide to murder a customer for a DRO that is in a totally different network/association/coalition of DROs. My DRO doesn't think I committed murder because the victim was a Sikh and the Templar Knights DRO (a member of the Crusader DRO Association) does not recognize the murder of infidels as a crime. Does the Sikh man's DRO take me to court somehow? But my DRO doesn't recognize any court that would make the sacred act of crusading illegal. And the Crusader DRO Association has a wide variety of businesses in agreements with it, so I can live a full healthy life under my DRO even if I am blacklisted by all DROs outside of the one that I am a member of.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 15:53 |
|
|
# ? May 6, 2024 04:47 |
|
Lumpen posted:When you say "our" resources, how do you define "us"? Only individuals are capable of acting. When you say "maximum possible benefit", how does one properly determine what is beneficial, and to whom, and when? All resources are scarce, and each individual has various wants to be satisfied and preferences of which desires are most important. Total central planning is an impossibility, therefore all forms of collective decision-making will fail, and the market, despite repeated failures throughout its history, will always succeed. Except for any corporate governance structure in existence. Most major corporations do not run on individual preference, or the wants and desires of individuals, and they remain the most efficient economic actors. I agree that total central planning is probably not possible, but the idea that a collective decision to limit the holdings of land, say, that an individual can acquire is a wholly different argument.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 16:00 |