|
jrodefeld posted:The sum total of the libertarian position that could ever remotely be construed as segregationist or separatist is the acknowledgement that once individuals acquire property in a legitimate manner Please describe this mechanism. quote:they have the right to exclusive control over that scarce resource provided their actions don't invade the property boundaries of another's legitimately owned private property, including of course their physical body. So you would agree then that a person who starts a car that releases any greenhouse gasses near my home is violating my rights?
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:the acceptance of gay marriage at the State level can be attributed in large part to libertarian advocacy and education over the past four decades. Please, feel free to produce evidence for this causal link. I'm sure that left-wing gay rights groups around the world will be chock-full of sources for this definitely true claim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Now, think very long and hard about what you just said. What do you mean "providing money or services" to the poor? Are you referring to voluntary charity or coercion through the State? Don't use euphemistic language to hide the violence inherent in the system you are advocating for. Why contain it? I love violence. I love forcing people to do what I say, because I know best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why contain it? 'S cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Don't use euphemistic language to hide the violence inherent in the system HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Please don't use euphemistic language. By the way, men with guns will kill you for not paying taxes, true facts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Now, think very long and hard about what you just said. What do you mean "providing money or services" to the poor? Are you referring to voluntary charity or coercion through the State? Don't use euphemistic language to hide the violence inherent in the system you are advocating for. He means redistributive taxation. I know this is a bad word for you, but it isn't for us. Don't use misleading language that only makes sense if we accept key points that are clearly in disagreement. quote:Honestly, I don't think you want to speak about voluntary charity because the statistics don't reflect well of progressives in relation to other demographics. I don't know the statistics of charitable givings by self described libertarians, however the studies continually reaffirm the fact that conservatives give more money to private charities and donate their time to humanitarian causes more often than do social democrats and progressives. Okay, so this is only technically correct (The best kind). Feel free to debate me on this (with sources), but here is an example source on this. While it is factually true that conservatives give more money to private charity and donate more time to charity, this is only true when you factor in religious charity. When you omit religious charity, which I suggest you do since only 10-25% of donations typically go to any humanitarian causes, the difference between the two groups is pretty much negligible. I assume that most of your information on this comes from the book "Who really cares" and the associated 2006 study that found conservatives give more. This study was riddled with errors, the most egregious of which was that it somehow found that liberals are typically richer than conservatives, which is pretty laughable. If you have datapoints to back up your assertions by all means present them. Its also worth pointing out, as I have multiple times, that charity is no stand in for social programs as it is a tiny drop in the bucket by comparison, and is in fact subsidized by tax breaks. People would give less to charity without those tax breaks. quote:This shouldn't be any great shock, of course. Those that believe it to be the State's "job" to take care of the poor and solve social problems should be expected to give less voluntarily. On the other hand, those you don't support such redistribution by a central authority are more likely to want to pick up the slack and donate their money and time to worthy causes. Considering the lead in for this is in contention I really don't think this even needs all that much of a reply. Liberals give just as much as anyone else, as charity is in many ways a function of self-image. Your assertions here are baseless speculation and I could just as easily point out that conservatives firmly believe in the 'bootstraps' ideology, which would preclude the idea of charity. quote:And if you can give yourself a pat on the back for your advocacy of so-called "progressive" policies, then so too can libertarians for their efforts to push back against immoral and destructive State policies. We are a minority clearly, but our constant opposition to war, to inflation, to the war on drugs and the police state among many other atrocities is noteworthy and praiseworthy. But our progressive policies are actually in place while yours flounder meaninglessly. Social Security continues to keep millions out of poverty as it has for nearly a century. While I can't take credit for social security, I have had an impact by going out and campaigning for politicians that ultimately represent my views. You have accomplished nothing, either because you are in the minority, or because your views are hideously unpopular. One probably follows the other I suppose. quote:Drug policy reform and the acceptance of gay marriage at the State level can be attributed in large part to libertarian advocacy and education over the past four decades. I disagree, to be honest. These policies have changed largely because of court decisions or political ones. Libertarians aren't really elected anywhere, so they don't have the legal or the political will to change these positions. You've added your voiced, but the typical libertarian voter ultimately votes libertarian and wastes their vote, or conservative and supports people who hate their own positions. quote:Libertarians loudly and vociferously opposed and spoke out against Congress granting George W Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. Not that there weren't principled leftists who opposed it as well, but the libertarians were unanimously good on this issue. We didn't have the power to stop it, but public education, protest and advocacy for just causes and in opposition to unjust actions should not be discounted. Why not? If you accomplish nothing then... why give yourself a pat on the back for your failure?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You seem to be laboring under the assumption that we think you're a racist because you support the assertions of racists. And while it is true that you support open racists, if you go back and reassess all the replies to your posts you will find that we found plenty of direct quotes that show that, again, while perhaps you are not an actual racist yourself, you regurgitate plenty of racist speech as your own. No I don't. Nothing I have said could be seen as racist by any reasonable person. Frankly I don't really care whether you view Hoppe or Rothbard or some other libertarian thinker as racist, but let's focus on me and what I've said. Let's suppose you are able to somehow prove beyond any doubt that I am in fact a racist and that every notable libertarian thinker and economist is racist. That STILL would not invalidate any of their arguments. If David Duke says four plus four is eight, then you have to evaluate the claim that is being made independent of what other views the source may have. David Duke is a reprehensible human being for the things he has said and done in his life, but if he said something that is incontrovertibly true, you have to concede the truth of the statement independent of the racist or supremacist views he may hold. It should be readily apparent how ludicrous a comparison it is to compare Duke to an intellectual libertarian philosopher or economist, but I am making an extreme example to prove a point. I maintain that some leftists get a thrill out of the quest to "out" someone as a racist, they are so quick to use that pejorative. Sensible people on the other hand work first to engage the issues and only use such a label when faced with incontrovertible evidence. Either way, it is entirely unproductive as a debate tactic. It poisons the well, it engenders anger and resentment, precisely the desired elicited response by such mud slingers. And it doesn't prove nearly as much as you think it does. You don't win a debate on politics, ethics and economics by saying that your opponent has some irrational prejudice. And it is not possible to refute either. How can one prove that they are NOT a racist? It is quite easy to demonstrate that a person is a racist. But no matter a persons actions they might still be a "secret" racist, just hiding their prejudices due to social pressure. The rational course of action then is to not throw that pejorative around and instead focus on a persons actions. A policy or an action can indeed have negative effects on certain groups of people. If that is so, you can persuasively say that this is a strike against that proposal. I could play this game all day long. I could post pictures of myself and my black friends, or say that I love hip hop music (I do), or any other thing that could exonerate me from this hateful accusation. But that would be giving credibility to an absurd charge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
gently caress you for appropriating the gay rights movement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Honestly, I don't think you want to speak about voluntary charity because the statistics don't reflect well of progressives in relation to other demographics. I don't know the statistics of charitable givings by self described libertarians, however the studies continually reaffirm the fact that conservatives give more money to private charities and donate their time to humanitarian causes more often than do social democrats and progressives. 1. Conservatives tend to be wealthier than liberals (which makes sense - if the status quo's been good to you, you're probably going to want to keep things the same; if it's been bad to you, you probably want things to change), so have more disposable income to give. Poorer people actually give a higher percentage of their income to charity than rich people. 2. Lots of charities don't have a measurable effect on relieving inequality, but donations to those organizations are treated just the same as donations to ones that help people directly. Donating to your city's ballet is all well and good, but how does it help poor people find food, shelter, legal defense, education, or medical care? Seems like the main benefit is to the (often already rich) patrons of the ballet! That's leaving aside charities that seem to focus more on enriching their managers than on actually helping people (looking at you, Susan G. Komen Foundation!) 3. Charitable giving shrinks just when it's needed most - in times of economic downturn. The mutual aid societies you've praised before were wiped out in the Great Depression because the people who needed them could no longer afford to be members. You need to present evidence that this won't happen in your proposed anarchist society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
It's cool I'm sure he has a gay friend or two he can post pics of or tell us how much he loves ballroom and then the appropriation becomes okay. For real though, "I can't be racist, I have black friends and occasionally enjoy 'hip' and 'hop'" is the textbook example of an answer that shows how poorly you understand racism in modern society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No I don't. Nothing I have said could be seen as racist by any reasonable person. Frankly I don't really care whether you view Hoppe or Rothbard or some other libertarian thinker as racist, but let's focus on me and what I've said. You seem to have the biggest victim complex I've ever seen on an internet forum. Stop talking about race. Go back to healthcare or minimum wage or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No I don't. Nothing I have said could be seen as racist by any reasonable person. Frankly I don't really care whether you view Hoppe or Rothbard or some other libertarian thinker as racist You don't? Good because Hoppe is a racist and Rothbard is a dead racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No I don't. Nothing I have said could be seen as racist by any reasonable person. Frankly I don't really care whether you view Hoppe or Rothbard or some other libertarian thinker as racist, but let's focus on me and what I've said. Are you incapable of reading? He specifically went out of his way there to say that we don't think you are a racist, just that you repeat statements made by racist people. That was the whole point of what you quoted. You give voice to people like Hans Hermann Hoppe who are in fact, racists. That's it. No one here thinks you are a racist Jrodefeld, so how about you stop protesting so much and move on... Jesus. quote:Let's suppose you are able to somehow prove beyond any doubt that I am in fact a racist and that every notable libertarian thinker and economist is racist. That STILL would not invalidate any of their arguments. If David Duke says four plus four is eight, then you have to evaluate the claim that is being made independent of what other views the source may have. David Duke is a reprehensible human being for the things he has said and done in his life, but if he said something that is incontrovertibly true, you have to concede the truth of the statement independent of the racist or supremacist views he may hold. No, we just think it is really important to know the starting ground for people on the other side of the debate. For many libertarians they are starting from a point that includes significant racial bias, and that fact colors and taints their work in such a way that it needs to be addressed up front. Your example here doesn't work because we aren't talking about things that are incontrovertably true. If David Duke says 2+2=4 I'm going to agree because the statement he is making is backed up by facts and well researched, and his personal racism has nothing to do with it. If David Duke starts talking about economic or social policy then it is absolutely fair ground to point out that he is a racist. And that as a Racist his social and economic policy is likely to be influenced by his own racial beliefs. That isn't an 'unproductive debate tactic', it is an attempt to make sure that all the relavent facts are out in the open. Hans Hermann Hoppe is a racist. His ideal society is one in which segregation is not only allowed, but accepted. The fact that Hans Hermann Hoppe is a racist is crucial to determining the value of his ideas, and the implications of the society he proposes. quote:And it doesn't prove nearly as much as you think it does. You don't win a debate on politics, ethics and economics by saying that your opponent has some irrational prejudice. And it is not possible to refute either. How can one prove that they are NOT a racist? It is quite easy to demonstrate that a person is a racist. But no matter a persons actions they might still be a "secret" racist, just hiding their prejudices due to social pressure. By not saying racist things or associating with known racists. You remember that list you posted a while back. There were several libertarians on there that I happily agreed were not, in fact, racist. You know why I came to that decision? Its because they didn't openly say racist things or support people who did. Is this really so hard to understand? As I mentioned above, I don't have the same problem you do. If you look at the modern politicians and thinkers I support, you don't find racists, because I don't support loving racists. If it was quite easy to determine you'd be able to show Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg etc were racist. But you can't, because they aren't. quote:The rational course of action then is to not throw that pejorative around and instead focus on a persons actions. A policy or an action can indeed have negative effects on certain groups of people. If that is so, you can persuasively say that this is a strike against that proposal. Okay. Hans Hermann Hoppe supports policies that would bring back segregation. Rand Paul openly opposed the section of the civil rights act that prohibits businesses to discrimination. Thats two off the top of my head. Its not a loving pejorative. I don't just point out Hans Hermann Hoppe is a racist because it'll instantly win me an argument, I point it out because his racism informs the policies he is suggesting. Just like I point it out with Rothbard, or Rand/Ron Paul or countless others. If Stefan Molyneux believes that women can't really be raped, do you think he is going to put out policy suggestions that are good for women? Come on guy. Just move the gently caress on to something else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Honestly, I don't think you want to talk about voluntary charity. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Jrod, you keep dumping this stuff on us and presenting it as what you believe, then you get mad at us for assuming it's what you believe. I appreciate that you're trying to articulate your own positions now instead of echoing others, but I don't think we can be blamed that strongly for failing to understand what you won't articulate. I think I need to reiterate what libertarianism is and what it isn't. I am a libertarian and I am also an individual who holds many views outside of the box called "libertarian political theory". Libertarianism is interested in defining what the proper role of force is in society. We subscribe to the non aggression principle that holds that it is never morally justified to initiate force against the person or property of another. I've said all this before. Racism, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily violate the non aggression principle. People hold all sorts of hateful beliefs in their heads but I cannot justify using force against them for holding those beliefs. It is true that racism has compelled many acts of violence and savagery over the centuries. The libertarian would consider the action of aggression itself to be immoral regardless of the motivation. So it should go without saying that the libertarian would oppose any and all acts of racism that involve the use of coercion. As for the subtler problems that arise in society due to bigoted views that people privately hold, libertarian theory does not address this. People who are libertarians can also be concerned about non aggressive abhorrent beliefs and practices. But this is outside of libertarian theory. Personally, I think all bigoted views are irrational and stupid. And, it must be acknowledged, that hatred and supremacist views if widespread frequently lead to overt aggression motivated by those bigoted views. This cannot be discounted. That is why I don't associate with racists, I am not friends with someone who is a racist. If someone says something racist, I call them out. I speak out against such views. I would not shop at a store that is owned by a known bigot and I would boycott any business that discriminates based on bigotry. These views are not per se libertarian, but they are my views. Similarly libertarianism says that prostitution should be legal i.e. no one should be permitted to use coercion against someone for the voluntary activity of exchanging money for sex. But does the libertarian have to endorse prostitution? Hardly. Many libertarians find prostitution to be morally repugnant and harmful to society in many ways. A libertarian could loudly speak out against prostitution or drug use so long as they realize they should not initiate force against people for engaging in these peaceful activities. This is the distinction that causes the layperson to assume that libertarians must endorse the voluntary actions of free people because they wouldn't use violence against them. Libertarians are not "racist" because they believe that freedom of association permits a bigot to disassociate with racial minorities on his or her property. It is a principled application of the non aggression principle that states that we will not initiate violence to stop consensual behavior no matter how morally obscene it may be. Now the libertarian may well use non-coercive means to oppose the sort of repugnant behavior he doesn't like in society. Persuasion, social ostracism, boycotts, public advocacy and freedom of association are more powerful than you realize. This is how the libertarian would deal with non-coercive behavior that he or she finds objectionable. But this advocacy would be outside of the scope of libertarian theory. I don't usually do this, but let me give some credit to Rand Paul on this issue in particular. Rand is hardly a libertarian. He is not his father, he is a flip flopper on very important issues and I doubt I could vote for him. However, I think he has made a valiant and concerted effort to reach out to the black community and push for long overdue reforms to the criminal justice system, to police militarization, to the war on drugs and many other issues. He is merely speaking from a larger podium to several key issues that libertarians have been advocating for a long time. If you want to speak about actual policies and their effects on the black community, ending the war on drugs and immediately releasing all non violent "criminals" currently rotting in prison, reuniting families and restoring their voting rights would probably amount to the single largest civil rights breakthrough in several decades. In the wake of the Ferguson situation, reform of the local police and the militarization of law enforcement is VERY necessary. Short of privatization of police services, we could provide far harsher punishments for police misconduct. I give Rand credit on this issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Karia posted:See, I don't really care about any of that. I just want you to take a look at the stuff that Shiranaihito posted (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636681&userid=212356) and comment on it. You've refused to comment on how much you agree/disagree with the big-name libertarians: will you continue to do the same with the one who poo poo up this thread a couple months back? I don't know why you would expect me to comment on the postings of some random person on an internet message board. If he or she comments on this thread and says something I strongly agree with or disagree with, I'll gladly comment. See, I understand why you would want me to comment on the views of a prominent libertarian thinker, but I should be under no obligation to answer for every anonymous poster who claims to be libertarian. I'll speak for myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't usually do this, but let me give some credit to Rand Paul on this issue in particular. Rand is hardly a libertarian. He is not his father, he is a flip flopper on very important issues and I doubt I could vote for him. However, I think he has made a valiant and concerted effort to reach out to the black community and push for long overdue reforms to the criminal justice system, to police militarization, to the war on drugs and many other issues. He is merely speaking from a larger podium to several key issues that libertarians have been advocating for a long time. He's actually just pandering. Rand Paul is just as much a racist as his father, a fact that is pretty easy to see when you look at his 'attempts' to curry favor with black voters. He realized that he hosed up on Rachel Maddow with the whole "I have a problem with part of the civil rights act" quote and has been trying to walk it back ever since, with hilarious failures along the way. For the record, policies supported by Rand Paul have been supported by other progressive politicians for several decades. Rand's only claim to fame is that he is doing so with an (R) next to his name. Edit: Oh oh oh! He's going post by post, which means he'll get to mine next!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
But seriously, shut the gently caress up about race already and move on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think I need to reiterate what libertarianism is and what it isn't. I am a libertarian and I am also an individual who holds many views outside of the box called "libertarian political theory". Libertarianism is interested in defining what the proper role of force is in society. We subscribe to the non aggression principle that holds that it is never morally justified to initiate force against the person or property of another. Let's say a black guy is handing out flyers in my neighborhood, he knocks on my door and we have a short and pleasant chat. During the chat I say he shouldn't knock on the door of the guy across the street because he's incredibly racist and on more than one occasion has expressed a desire to kill any black person on his property. I go back inside and putter around for a few minutes before glancing out my window and seeing my neighbor pummeling the black guy. Accepting that the black guy may have set foot on the guys property, how the gently caress am I not morally justified in using force to stop what I suspect may turn into a murder?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Now, think very long and hard about what you just said. What do you mean "providing money or services" to the poor? Are you referring to voluntary charity or coercion through the State? Don't use euphemistic language to hide the violence inherent in the system you are advocating for. No, we've already gone over voluntary charity several times in this thread. Since you keep forgetting about arguments that you've already had, I'll go ahead and just summarize the points. There are three major issues with relying on voluntary charity to deal with people who fall on hard times: 1) It falls way, way short of what's needed. If you add up all of the voluntary charity in the US, it was about $335 billion in 2013. Social safety net spending is in the trillions. You'd have to increase charitable spending by two orders of magnitude in order to cover the shortfall, but in an ancap society charity spending will likely decrease because you've eliminated one of the major reasons that many people and corporations give to charity: taxes. 2) There's no reason to believe that charity giving was ever sufficient or will ever be sufficient. Historically speaking, charity has never been enough to cover nearly everyone, and there's no reason to believe that now everything would be fine. Governments don't just do things at random, social spending programs are created when there's a need not being met and enough people demanding that something be done 3) It goes away when it's most needed. This one has already been covered by other posters very recently, but I'll cover it again anyway: when hard times strike, people give less to charity. Charity has been seriously insufficient in even the best of times, so during hard times, when more people need it and fewer feel like donating, it's especially insufficient. Or are we going to pretend that there would be no more boom/bust cycles in ancap society? Seriously, if you believe that charitable giving would be enough to support those who need charity, then you're either incredibly naive or intentionally ignorant of the facts. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, we've already gone over voluntary charity several times in this thread. Since you keep forgetting about arguments that you've already had, I'll go ahead and just summarize the points. There are three major issues with relying on voluntary charity to deal with people who fall on hard times: Oh come on, you totally wouldn't have to increase it that much. Charity could replace government handouts at a fraction of the cost. Just look at this mises.org link. quote:2) There's no reason to believe that charity giving was ever sufficient or will ever be sufficient. Historically speaking, charity has never been enough to cover nearly everyone, and there's no reason to believe that now everything would be fine. Governments don't just do things at random, social spending programs are created when there's a need not being met and enough people demanding that something be done Haven't you heard about Mutual Aid Societies? They existed back in the 1930's and then went away for some not at all explored reason. And that is why we don't need social security. quote:3) It goes away when it's most needed. This one has already been covered by other posters very recently, but I'll cover it again anyway: when hard times strike, people give less to charity. Charity has been seriously insufficient in even the best of times, so during hard times it's especially insufficient. ... I actually don't know enough to straw man an answer to this one. I've posted it multiple times to Jrodefeld and never received any sort of answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:He's actually just pandering. Rand Paul is just as much a racist as his father, a fact that is pretty easy to see when you look at his 'attempts' to curry favor with black voters. He realized that he hosed up on Rachel Maddow with the whole "I have a problem with part of the civil rights act" quote and has been trying to walk it back ever since, with hilarious failures along the way. I promise I am going to move on and talk about the minimum wage in a minute. But I think you are showing a gross double standard here. I don't even like Rand Paul, so I feel strange defending him. For everything that could be said about him, I don't think there is ANY evidence he is a racist. At the very least show some discretion when using that word. Yes some progressives have supported similar reforms but not that many that are actually elected to Congress. Maybe Rand is pandering. But if any of these proposed reforms are enacted, it would have a substantial positive effect on the black community at large. The fact that he is making the case as a Republican actually greatly enhances the chances of success. Bipartisan bills tend to be taken more seriously and if Rand becomes a major player in the GOP, he could get enough Republican votes to push these things into law. The proposed reforms ARE a reflection of libertarian values. Even if Rand is not sincere, the least that could be said is that he is using the growing appeal of libertarianism to gain positive coverage through pushing long overdue reforms. I'm not saying that he or Corey Booker are going to succeed and I suggest we all pressure them to follow up and actually seriously push these reforms. But I have to question your commitment to the plight of poor blacks if you denigrate Rand even in the face of these proposals. Instead of saying "good job Rand, you're really pushing some important issues and I'm behind you" you instead say he is just a filthy racist no matter what he does. I brought up Rand because I was challenged on what libertarians are actually doing to deal with racism and the plight of poor blacks. There are actually substantial policy proposals that could viably become law and a primary reason is the growing popularity of libertarianism. If Rand is not actually sincere, and you cannot really know that either way, it is the fact that he feels compelled to attempt to broaden the GOP base by appealing to actual libertarians that has allowed him to push such reforms inside the GOP where ten years ago that never would have been possible. This is an example of actual, tangible reforms that could improve the lives of poor blacks that are in large part due to the growing influence of libertarianism. Why again is Rand a racist? Because of the Rachel Maddow interview? Every principled libertarian would say that legitimate private property owners have the right to discriminate for any reason, which would would invalidate one section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act from a libertarian perspective. I know of no libertarian who would ever endorse such bigoted policies. I know of no libertarian who would not speak out against such policies and use boycotts and freedom of association to ostracize such people. But the correct libertarian position is that if the principle of private ownership of property means anything, we must tolerate any use of private property that is peaceful which implies the right of the bigot to discriminate against anyone he wants. Now Rand didn't say this as explicitly as I did, or as other libertarians have. And, predictably for someone with as little conviction and as much political ambition as Rand, he flip flopped and lacked consistency in his story. As Sheldon Richman wrote at the time: quote:
I am hoping that we can agree that a principled private property position is not inherently racist. Yet is this not the one and only piece of evidence you are using to claim that Rand is a filthy racist? Is Sheldon Richman a racist? Am I a racist for being consistent? No doubt you disagree with the libertarian position here. But it shouldn't be hard for you to acknowledge and concede that the motivation for this view is not racism but rather consistency of principle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I promise I am going to move on and talk about the minimum wage in a minute. But I think you are showing a gross double standard here. It is when the system used to obtain property over time has largely been a racist enterprise. The idea that you can set up some rules for a society and let it sit and run ignores the concept of history and justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Let's say a black guy is handing out flyers in my neighborhood, he knocks on my door and we have a short and pleasant chat. During the chat I say he shouldn't knock on the door of the guy across the street because he's incredibly racist and on more than one occasion has expressed a desire to kill any black person on his property. I go back inside and putter around for a few minutes before glancing out my window and seeing my neighbor pummeling the black guy. Accepting that the black guy may have set foot on the guys property, how the gently caress am I not morally justified in using force to stop what I suspect may turn into a murder? You are absolutely morally justified in using force to stop the assault. Just because I believe in the right of private property does not mean that you can do anything you please to someone who happens to be within the boundary of your homesteaded or legitimately acquired property. According to libertarian theory defensive force has to be proportional or it becomes aggressive force. If someone walks across your lawn you can't shoot them or assault them. If someone is trespassing and you would like them to leave, you must first inform them and ask them to leave. If they refuse peacefully, then you can slowly escalate until in the last resort you can physically remove them from your property. You would most likely call the police and have them remove the trespasser. You can only use deadly or extreme force if you have legitimate reason to fear for your life. It is not always easy to determine what is legitimate defensive force in a complex situation. If such a situation escalated, then the case would go to court and the court or arbitrator would have to determine who was the aggressor and who was the victim. If you used force against a trespasser the force must be deemed proportional and not excessive or you too would be held criminally liable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is not always easy to determine what is legitimate defensive force in a complex situation. If such a situation escalated, then the case would go to court and the court or arbitrator would have to determine who was the aggressor and who was the victim. If you used force against a trespasser the force must be deemed proportional and not excessive or you too would be held criminally liable. Of course, in this case you don't mean a court, since courts are part of a state. You mean some sort of free market DRO, the problems with which have been gone over many, many times already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
I'm going to talk about minimum wage for a minute. I am opposed to minimum wage requirements while you all support them. I contend the following things: 1. An employer will not pay a worker more than the productivity they provide them. In other words, they won't take a loss for every hour the employee works. Therefore there is a hard upper limit for what a given worker will ever be paid until or unless their productivity and skills improve so that they are more valuable to their employer. 2. Furthermore there is a lower limit to what the employer will pay in wages. The lower limit is set by the other employment opportunities that are available to every worker. Since each of us is seeking to improve our situation in life through economic transactions, we choose that transaction which we value most and leave aside those that we value less. This is what the Austrians call the "Preference Order". If a worker agrees to accept a job opportunity it necessarily must mean that the worker evaluated his economic options and determined that that job provided more value than any other options available. Employers need good workers and offering wages that are too low will only caused workers to seek other employment. 3. There is no such thing as a "living wage" and it is ridiculous for politicians or technocrats to arbitrarily determine the wage that is required to "live" in every State, for every age group, in every city. Everyone's situation is different. One person might be quite happy to work for $7 an hour in an entry job, while another person may need to earn $15 an hour to live as well. The lower wage earner might value the experience and skills learned on the job at more than the difference in wage rates from some other job that pays more. What right should politicians have to make certain voluntary economic transactions illegal thus artificially reducing the choices available to people? Do you dispute that there is an intrinsic upper and lower wage rate that an employer has when deciding on the wage he will offer to an applicant? Is it not self evident that an employer will not take a loss by paying a worker more per hour than the value of his work to the company? You could say "maybe he is crazy. Maybe he wants to go bankrupt". But as a general rule, the job of the entrepreneur is to seek a profit. So there is an intrinsic wage ceiling for a given worker in a given position. Certainly this means that if the minimum wage rate is raised beyond that point people whose marginal productivity is below that level will face unemployment. Do you dispute this? It is all fine and well to want people to earn more money and live better. I very much want this as well. What I fail to understand is how any rational person could ever think that raising the minimum wage could actually uplift anyone. The worker who is making more money for the company than they are paid in wages will remain employed after the minimum wage is raised and the people who are now costing the company more in wages than they are making for the company will now be consigned to unemployment. It won't cause anyone to be employed. It will not actually raise anyone's real wages. It only serves to artificially limit the economic opportunities available to a person. And what right do YOU have to introduce violence into a peaceful economic transaction? If you REALLY wanted to help out workers why don't you become an entrepreneur and hire some of them, paying them a wage that YOU think is fair? What right do you have to use violence against people who are engaged in a voluntary trade on the market? If you trot out the claim that wise and prudent technocrats can determine a "reasonable" minimum wage that is raised slightly but causes no additional unemployment because of empirical studies that claim no negative employment effects of minimum wage hikes, I can only say that this is a very flawed argument. Raising the minimum wage necessarily must cause more jobs to be illegal than they were before. If the minimum wage increase is VERY small, the number of additional jobs that are now illegal will be very small as well but they will exist. Businesses use very careful accountants. They determine how much an employee can earn based on the economic value of their job. Their are many people who are on the margins at many businesses who whose productivity is barely above the minimum wage who would be fired out of necessity if a minimum wage hike occurs. Currently it makes sense to keep them around and train them to hopefully have more productivity in three to six months. It would cost more to have to find a new employer and train them even if their productivity was slightly higher. But once a minimum wage increase goes into effect, the decision is made much easier. Studies that prove that there are no unemployment effects of minimum wage laws are problematic because how do they determine what unemployment rates would be otherwise? In what time-frame were these studies done? How comprehensive were they? Just because a study is said to be "empirical" does not mean that they are accurate or even very scientific. For the record, the consensus of the empirical economic research proves that there are indeed unemployment effects of minimum wage laws. The ones that purport to prove differently are nearly universally bought off studies that are commissioned by some political interest group. If a study purports to show no unemployment effects of a minimum wage hike in six months, two questions arise. Maybe six months is not a sufficient time frame for the unemployment effects to ripple through the economy? Automation and technology has increasingly replaced human labor after minimum wage increases and it takes time for that technology to proliferate. The second question is, what if the unemployment rate would have been falling instead of remaining steady? If a study finds no unemployment effects of a minimum wage increase over a years time because the unemployment rate remains at, say, 6% consistently, that doesn't account for the fact that in a healthy growing economy, the unemployment rate may be falling. Maybe the rate would have fallen to 5% or 4% after than year without the minimum wage increase? Is that accounted for in the study? Shockingly, this is NOT accounted for in many of these biased and self serving "studies".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, we've already gone over voluntary charity several times in this thread. Since you keep forgetting about arguments that you've already had, I'll go ahead and just summarize the points. There are three major issues with relying on voluntary charity to deal with people who fall on hard times: I'm not forgetting anything. I was objecting to the language that was used. It was said that Progressives gave money to this group or to this cause, when what was really meant was that Progressives supported the State in its use of force to expropriate people against their will to fund policies that they support. I am contrasting that will voluntary donations and charity which to my mind is a much more commendable action in helping the poor. Reading what you wrote, I am not really sure you understand anything about economics. Who are you to say "what's needed" to help the poor? How could you even know what the economy would look like without the State, how much more prosperous we might be? "What's needed" to help the poor is always a relative concept. Do you understand that the State doesn't actually produce anything? What are the poor lacking that we need to redress? They lack stuff. They might lack a home, a car, enough to eat, decent clothes and things that need to first be produced on the market before they could be redistributed to them by some well meaning progressive politicians. People were poor in 1900 primarily because the economy was physically unproductive compared to today. You could have redistributed every cent from the Rockafellers and the so-called "robber barons" and the masses would have hardly been better off at all. The thing that improved their situation was the market economy investing in capital equipment which improved and increased production of vital goods and services, lowering their price and making necessary goods, the aforementioned "stuff" available in great quantities to the masses. Think of the contribution of someone like Henry Ford, who improved the manufacturing process of the automobile and made it available to the masses for the first time. How much better were peoples lives when they could own a car to travel in? How much more productive did the economy become with the proliferation of the automobile? These are the sorts of things that improve the general prosperity and reduce poverty. The State can restrict this process through extracting huge amounts of money out of the private economy. But this is not productive. The State is not producing cars or food or anything else. It can shuffle existing resources around and that is it. Doubling the money supply doesn't double the amount of resources in the economy. It just creates a situation where more money is chase the same amount of goods which causes price inflation. You have to ask yourself "what would the economy look like if the State didn't confiscate all that wealth out of the private economy and instead that money was invested into new capital equipment to increase production of needed goods and services for the masses? How much more prosperous would we be? If you understand that the State makes our economy less prosperous and less productive than it otherwise would be and simultaneously produces nothing, it becomes quite absurd to assert that private charity would "fall short of what's needed" to help the poor. I might think that what the poor need is a yacht each and a Bentley but these goods are not produced in quantities sufficient to give out. What the poor need must be created in the private economy. Furthermore, for ever $5 the US government spends on social welfare programs, only $1 actually makes it to the intended recipient. So why on earth would you ever imagine that charitable giving would ever need to match State social welfare spending dollar for dollar? Lastly you have to understand the perverse incentive structure for State social welfare as opposed to private charity. Politicians brag about the number of people they sign up for welfare instead of how many people they help off of the dole and into a productive job with upward mobility. The incentive for politicians is to use social welfare as a bribe for votes. If people become dependent on State power they become fearful and ever protective of what they now feel "entitled" to. They frequently become single issue voters who vote for the candidate who will best protect or increase their benefits rather than that candidate which will best protect their liberties and leave them alone. In contrast, private charity and mutual aid is concerned with getting people off of assistance and into a position of self sufficiency. The beneficiary needs to be "nice" to his donors since the arrangement is voluntary. Voluntary donors are better able to determine who needs help and who doesn't. Welfare cheats and abuse would be virtually non existent. No one would tolerate an able bodied person refusing to work and getting perpetual benefits. In conclusion, there is every reason to believe that the thing that is most necessary for social welfare in society is a prosperous productive economy that produces the goods needed for a good, happy and healthy life. This is best accomplished through the market system as history clearly demonstrates. The State doesn't produce anything that the poor need, they only shift around existing resources in a political way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The State doesn't produce anything that the poor need, they only shift around existing resources in a political way. What a laughably false assertion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:It is when the system used to obtain property over time has largely been a racist enterprise. The idea that you can set up some rules for a society and let it sit and run ignores the concept of history and justice. I don't know what this means. If property was acquired illegitimately and this can be proven, then the current occupant should forfeit the right to that property or give it to those it was stolen from. Unless you have some foolproof method of redressing every past atrocity, then we have to move forward with the unfortunate fact that some of us have certain disadvantages due to past injustices. I am open to hearing how you would suggest we go about redressing past injustices without causing further injustice in the present.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
So what if my grandparents murdered the occupants of the land that I now own? What if it turns out there is a long lost relative of the original occupants, but my parents and my grandparents are dead. I have built up the land and live in a house I built. Should I lose my property now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know what this means. If property was acquired illegitimately and this can be proven, then the current occupant should forfeit the right to that property or give it to those it was stolen from. Hahaha, of course anything that might allow minority groups some recompense for the atrocities visited upon them throughout all of American history would need to be completely foolproof or it's just not fair, but don't worry guys, I totally have this hunch that eliminating all taxation and privatizing the police will make society be better despite the whole of human history repeatedly showing otherwise. Could you at least pretend to be arguing in good faith, jrodefeld?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Of course, in this case you don't mean a court, since courts are part of a state. You mean some sort of free market DRO, the problems with which have been gone over many, many times already. Yes because of course the State monopolized courts and criminal "justice" system have no problems at all, right? Go ahead and apply this defense of monopoly argument to any other private enterprise and see how it would sound. "I much prefer having Comcast be the monopolist of cable and tv service in my area. It is so much better not having to deal with the hassle of choice and competition." No chance of abuse and worse service by a private monopolist right? There is no chance in hell that any progressive would ever defend a private monopoly like this. Naturally, the cost would increase and the quality of service would decrease if you had no choice but to sign up with Comcast for your internet and/or TV. Why does this not equally apply to State monopolized courts? One big problem with the State is that they have a monopoly on final decision making power and arbitration between conflicts including conflicts that involve themselves. Since the people have no choice, the State monopolized courts and criminal justice system can get away with enforcing clearly unjust laws and verdicts year after year with no repercussions. If private arbitrators or private courts competed for public trust and patronage, they would be judged both for their cost and a history of just rulings and decisions. Unjust rulings and decisions would be punished in the marketplace just as poor service and high cost is punished for the provision of any other good or service on the market. I don't blame you for not quite understanding how this could work in practice, but you can't forget the record of the State-monopolized court and justice system that you are defending. With a record that abysmal, I would hope you would be open to alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
That Richman guy is a piece of work. "Several diners in Nashville integrated! The system works... after jailing 150 students and ruining their lives! More people should have sacrificed themselves, a law was not needed!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know what this means. If property was acquired illegitimately and this can be proven, then the current occupant should forfeit the right to that property or give it to those it was stolen from. Native American tribes "mixed their labor" with the land they lived on, but white (and black and Latino) settlers took that virtually all of that land away by force, leaving the native people with the worst bits of land to live on at best. Everyone in America lives on that illegitimately appropriated land. Any fourth-grader can tell you that, but I guess since we can't find the exact legitimate heirs of the people who didn't leave written records of land ownership and didn't even conceive of land as something you could individually own, I guess it would be pointless to try and return it. quote:I am open to hearing how you would suggest we go about redressing past injustices without causing further injustice in the present. Take away some of the assets of the current beneficiaries of the system (not enough to beggar them) and redistribute it through public welfare programs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes because of course the State monopolized courts and criminal "justice" system have no problems at all, right? In your mind, how much more effective is a system where, instead of a judge possibly being illegally bribed by a company, the company just directly pays his salary instead? If I seek to sue said company for willingly selling me a faulty product, why would the judge have any reason to rule in my favor? What if I try to sue the company using a different judge and they refuse? Is there some kind of higher authority to appeal to, aside from public opinion and bad word of mouth? If one justice service had a reputation for being fair and just and another had a reputation for protecting their clients at all costs, guilty or no, why wouldn't I just use them instead? Assuming I care more about protecting my interests than doing the right thing. If I rob a person but I also make a significant contribution to my private police service, would they arrest me if doing so would mean they're no longer getting paid? What if the person I robbed uses a different private police service, can they arrest me? Can my police service stop them? It's my word against his, after all. What if a homeless man is found dead? Would the police still conduct a full investigation for free? If so, why? Can you actually answer any of these questions? Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:What a laughably false assertion. Is not the money that is spent to fund social welfare programs redistributed from the private economy? Don't just assert something to be false. Demonstrate why it is false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So what if my grandparents murdered the occupants of the land that I now own? What if it turns out there is a long lost relative of the original occupants, but my parents and my grandparents are dead. I have built up the land and live in a house I built. Should I lose my property now? Providing that it can be irrefutably proven that your grandparents murdered the former property owners and stole that property, then I think the descendant should be entitled to the property that was stolen. It has to be proven incontrovertibly that the ancestors who were murdered had a legitimate claim to the property, or at least a superior claim to your grandparents. If these things can be proven in a court, then you will have to forfeit your property because you are occupying stolen land. It is unfortunate since you didn't personally commit the theft and you surely deserve some sympathy but the fact remains that your claim to private property is not valid if the person who gave it to you didn't have a rightful claim to ownership. The earlier user of a resource has a better claim to ownership than a later user unless the earlier user voluntarily gives up ownership through sale, gift or abandonment. Suppose someone steals a Rolex watch from you and then sells it to me on the street. I don't know the watch was stolen so I buy it. Now you take me to court over the watch and you can prove that the watch is yours and it was stolen. Even though I personally didn't steal it, you have the property right in the watch and I don't. I have been conned and I would be out the money I paid for the watch, but the watch still belongs to you. Now if it were proven that your grandparents stole the property from someone but no descendants can be found or come forward to claim ownership of the property, you don't have to renounce your current ownership. It is hard to prove old theft like this and cases like this would probably be uncommon. Does this make sense to you or do you think that you deserve the property title in the land even though it was proven that your grandparents murdered the original owner, stole the property and a descendant is now claiming ownership?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Providing that it can be irrefutably proven that your grandparents murdered the former property owners and stole that property, then I think the descendant should be entitled to the property that was stolen. It has to be proven incontrovertibly that the ancestors who were murdered had a legitimate claim to the property, or at least a superior claim to your grandparents. So I should have to give up what I labored on, what I because of my grandparents actions? That sounds quite monstrous. I mean thats like punishing me for something I didn't do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Hahaha, of course anything that might allow minority groups some recompense for the atrocities visited upon them throughout all of American history would need to be completely foolproof or it's just not fair, but don't worry guys, I totally have this hunch that eliminating all taxation and privatizing the police will make society be better despite the whole of human history repeatedly showing otherwise. I didn't say any of that. I just pointed out the obvious, which is that history is replete with examples of atrocities and theft of land and it is not possible to redress all past injustices. That doesn't mean you don't make an effort where possible. Like I explained in the previous post, property theft that can be proven should be given to the descendants of the victims. However, indiscriminately claiming the property of large groups of people to give to other large groups of people without providing the burden of proof that they are occupying land that another has a better claim to is not redressing past injustices but rather furthering injustice in the present day. So blacks were historically treated extremely badly in the United States. So what is the solution? Is it to steal the property of the Irish immigrant who came here last year to give to the Jamaican immigrant that came here ten years ago whose ancestors were never slaves? Without being precise in whose property is illegitimate and who has a better claim, you are just creating new injustices. Murray Rothbard (apparently a huge racist according to some on this site) argued persuasively that every freed slave after the Civil War should have been given a portion of the plantation he was forced to work on. His labor was stolen from him, he homesteaded the land by mixing his labor from it and it should be his property. The slave masters who enslaved these poor Africans should immediately forfeit their property. With this being said, if a current black person could prove that their ancestors were enslaved on a particular plantation or land that still exists, then libertarian justice would mean that they should immediately be granted a portion of that land since their ancestors homesteaded it and should have been given the land after emancipation. The same holds true for the Native Americans. Proving such claims is difficult but not impossible. These actions won't make up for the injustices perpetrated against blacks and native Americans but it will provide some level of justice and redress to some extent. Any other "solution" would perpetuate more injustice by initiating violence against innocent people and/or benefiting people who don't deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:43
|
|