|
jrodefeld posted:It is absurd to think that Native American tribes had any reasonable standard of ownership over the entire continent. Settlers had every right to come over and homestead land. They had no just right to murder the natives or force them out of the land that they commonly used. Our ancestors should have negotiated in good faith and worked out their differences, respecting reasonable property boundaries for the natives and not using force against them. Okay so maybe some of the original colonies might be fine. But surely nothing that was explicitly seized in conquest, right? The Northwest Territory, Georgia, Florida, and the entire Midwest and West except maybe New Orleans. Those areas demonstrably belonged to other people and were only opened to Anglo homesteading by military conquest. We know that poo poo was stolen. Now I know you're going to say, "but it's too harrrrrrd, and people already live there, and that would displace people and be baaaaad" but get right the gently caress out with your amoral utilitarian bullshit. We're deontologists here, and a right is a right is a right. Conquest can never give title to property, and all homesteading, sales, and transactions on stolen land are null and void. And what do you care if the Native American 2% of the population suddenly becomes absurdly rich? As you've said, it doesn't matter where we start because the Free Market will ensure that the wealth will flow to those who work the hardest and are the most ingenious entrepreneurs anyway. That is your explicit reasoning given before for why we don't need to redistribute the land and wealth equally before we abolish the coercive State to give everyone an equal starting position. So apparently it literally isn't important how we distribute things on the eve of Libertarian Year Zero according to you, and nothing we do can have bad effects that the All-Wise Market won't fix lickety-split once all the laws are gone. There's not even a utilitarian reason for refusing to follow our principles here. jrodefeld posted:Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else can devise any sort of policy that can undo all historical injustices of the past. Given that you yourself don't have any more workable a solution than I to deal with the theft of Native American property, then you ought to shut up and stop criticizing me on this point. Reparations is my actual solution, because I am a utilitarian and I recognize that displacing millions of people would be a horrible idea, when we can instead tax those ill-gotten gains and spend it on those who had their land stolen from them. It's interesting though that now suddenly you're a deontologist again and welfare is wrong full stop even though we know these people were dispossessed and displaced and murdered, but can't fix that because taxes are theft, that's wrong wrong wrong wrong. But we also can't give back the land because while morally right, we've got to abandon our moral principles if something is too hard or too uncomfortable. How convenient. jrodefeld posted:Moving forward, it is much more important to deal with currently ongoing property rights violations that the State perpetrates on the rest of us. If we can theorize about the potential of Native Americans proving property theft one hundred and fifty years ago, surely property theft through eminent domain or confiscation of income taxes that occurred last year can and should be redressed immediately by any society that values justice! Once again, how convenient for you that we can be utilitarian today and only return stolen wealth when it's "practical". Why do you get land taken by eminent domain that was originally taken by war and conquest and broken treaties? jrodefeld posted:I take a backseat to no one in my condemnation of the historical treatment of Native Americans. It really was a genocide of unimaginable proportions. I take a backseat to no one in my condemnation of the fact that I benefit from stealing things that are rightfully yours. Hey, what are you still doing here, I said I condemned my past theft! Now get the gently caress out and work hard to get ahead like I did, stop demanding a piece of my land! I earned this! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Dec 3, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. Don't you find it interesting that Rothbard is only interested in acknowledging that we should right a wrong committed against a minority hundreds of years after it's practical to do so, but never one that exists presently? Surely when it comes to descendants of slaves, the records exist that we could still go back and do what you're suggesting, funny how I never see Libertarians push for that in policy though, but only as a rhetorical device followed immediately by "oh well, tooooooo hard!" Hey, actually we didn't have to go back two hundred years! In Rothbard's lifetime there was homesteading going on by dispossessed blacks on unjustly acquired Apartheid-enforced white-owned farms and mines in South Africa! What was his opinion on the rights of those hard-working homesteaders again? Oh. Murray Rothbard posted:A second, and more plausible, form of black nationalism is for a separate black nation in currently existing black areas: a New Africa comprised of Harlem, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Detroit, Watts, et al. with its capital the old Washington, D.C., and President Jesse Jackson sitting in the Black House( Oh right, we should import the Afrikaner Nationalist methods and confine black people to their own homelands somewhere,preferably in Africa where they're not right next door expecting handouts. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:40
|
|
). But then more problems arise. Apart from all the problems of enclaves and access, does anyone really believe that this New Africa would be content to strike out on its own, with no massive “foreign aid” from the U.S.A., and strictly limited migration between the two nations? In a pig’s eye.
); but in Malcolm’s case, regardless of his formal ideology, it really seemed to be true.
|
Nolanar posted:I would have gone with feudalism, since that's the name for a system where all land is privately owned and law and jurisdiction are just a series of personal contracts between individuals. And ultimately we saw where feudalism leads: a pile of bloody wars over the stupidest poo poo imaginable (generally property claims and succession, coincidentally!), and then right back into states. That is also prety accurate. I was thinking of HHH's conceptions of segregated communities and persecution of democrats, Luftwaffle's discussion of benevolent dictatorship by the "good folks" being superior to democracy, and the obvious desire of both of them to use state power to expel racial or ethnic undesireables. Expansion of the "good folks" into new lands that are currently occupied by "bad folks" or non-Western peoples, who don't have correct conceptions of property rights anyway, or who deserve to be conquered because of their inferior culture, or whose societies would have collapsed anyway, just seems like a completely natural extension of their ideas. Jrod, in fact, advocated for this just a few posts ago when he said white homesteaders had every right to take land from Native Americans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Figures Rothbard would think Thurgood Marshall was an obvious idiot for winning Brown v Board, but this dead guy whose words I can co-opt into supporting bantustans to imprison the former slaves, well my my what a clean well-spoken black man he was: I shall even give him the status of Honorary White!
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:Go back to Europe then. Seriously, get. The majority of land in North America was literally stolen from people who didn't have the concept of land ownership. It's actually even worse than that: Many Native American peoples did have developed concepts of land ownership and property, they just usually wasn't similar to European concepts of private ownership (though some actually were). As such, and not inconveniently as it helped justify confiscation and Indian removal and played to racist conceptions of the native peoples as backward savages, whites colonizing North America more or less arbitrarily decided that they didn't have any concept of ownership, thus any old patch of dirt would work for them as well as their ancestral lands, so off to Oklahoma with the lot!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:so off to Oklahoma with the lot! Oh hey, turns out Oklahoma doesn't suck as bad as we thought now that we have the technology to plow up the prairie. Get those Indian sympathizers out of the government, whose idea was it to give them the best land and close it off to whites forever!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ann Romney has a paper from the US Government saying she owns the land. Where was the Lakota's US Government-issued ownership deed? It's really funny how libertarians say they despise the state, but the concept of property rights they worship is the state. One could almost say they worship the state
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's really funny how libertarians say they despise the state, but the concept of property rights they worship is the state. One could almost say they worship the state Its a lot like anarchists in general: They claim to despise the state, but literally suggest the creation of a state as a solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:*A deep voice in '90s audio fidelity rings out* Guess I'm going to be Jarl of New York, then. King Obama I has done gently caress all to enforce my rightful claim. Anyway, jr, I'm arguing that in a world with no remaining legitimate titles, there's now no such thing as theft. But beyond that argument, lets go with something a bit more optimistic  Is it possible for property to be non-rivalrous? That more than one person can own and enjoy the benefits of a given proprty? Or at least, for more than one person to own parts of a greater whole? Is it possible for property to be so large and so distant as to require hiring people, employees to administer and labor in it? Of course it is, even the simplest factory requires workers and supervisors. So I say there's a reason public servants are called by that name. They're the laborers and supervisors of our property, carrying out our will. How can you argue against us exercising our legitimate property rights?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Yes, they hate the modern state because it isn't run exclusively by white men, and the government took on activist roles in the economy, like outlawing child labor, forcing publicly traded companies to produce accurate financial data, and breaking up monopolies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's really funny how libertarians say they despise the state, but the concept of property rights they worship is the state. One could almost say they worship the state Presumably DROs would still enforce Ann Romney's claims though, both over her riding grounds, and over the sugar islands in the Caribbean that her husband at any time has a right to go homestead away from those squatting savages who can hardly be said to have a property right in rich lands that they don't even know what to do with. All that savage drumming and shucking and jiving and hippity-hopping do not property rights make, and they'd be clearly better off learning a good work ethic under the lash 20 hours a day for the fifteen short years of work that can be got out of their idle frames.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Slightly unrelated news from the Jesus thread:BrandorKP posted:So what the hell is point of telling you all that. Well what's the critique I keep making. Constructed models are constructed models. A system level model of the freshwater system on a ship, the underlying way of constructing that isn't any different from, how libertarians build their systems, isn't any different from how religious apology works, isn't any different from how any particular ideology is constructed. This just in: Engineers are libertarians and all models are no different from libertarianism 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Slightly unrelated news from the Jesus thread: I think I get a little what he's saying, but the difference is that one of these constructed systems provides functional predictions for reality. By this logic Christianity is equivalent to Libertarianism is equivalent to Engineering is equivalent to a Dungeons and Dragons magic system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:I think I get a little what he's saying, but the difference is that one of these constructed systems provides functional predictions for reality. Exactly my point. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Presumably DROs would still enforce Ann Romney's claims though, both over her riding grounds, and over the sugar islands in the Caribbean that her husband at any time has a right to go homestead away from those squatting savages who can hardly be said to have a property right in rich lands that they don't even know what to do with. All that savage drumming and shucking and jiving and hippity-hopping do not property rights make, and they'd be clearly better off learning a good work ethic under the lash 20 hours a day for the fifteen short years of work that can be got out of their idle frames. This post is much better when read in a Bill Cosby voice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Yes, they hate the modern state because it isn't run exclusively by white men, and the government took on activist roles in the economy, like outlawing child labor, forcing publicly traded companies to produce accurate financial data, and breaking up monopolies. If the owner wanted something else, they should have been more clear. As it stands, the employees followed their instructions and obeyed their contracts, and this is what we have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:I think I get a little what he's saying, but the difference is that one of these constructed systems provides functional predictions for reality. By this logic Christianity is equivalent to Libertarianism is equivalent to Engineering is equivalent to a Dungeons and Dragons magic system. Ahem, the preferred nomenclature is Vancian magic after midcentury American fantasy writer Jack Vance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Hey Jrode could you try, for a change, not writing a million words to say four things? All your flowery bullshit does is make you look like a deluded rear end in a top hat who's incapable of communicating a point in less than a day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Hey Jrode could you try, for a change, not writing a million words to say four things? All your flowery bullshit does is make you look like a deluded rear end in a top hat who's incapable of communicating a point in less than a day. It's kinda his thing, because if you stripped it down and made his arguments more concise you'd end up with posts that boil down to "If we get rid of minimum wage/the civil rights act/UHC/etc, poor people would get paid more/racism would end/healthcare would be cheaper because it would be great if it worked out like that!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:It's kinda his thing, because if you stripped it down and made his arguments more concise you'd end up with posts that boil down to "If we get rid of minimum wage/the civil rights act/UHC/etc, poor people would get paid more/racism would end/healthcare would be cheaper because it would be great if it worked out like that!" He wouldn't be the first person to use verbosity as a substitute for truth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:He wouldn't be the first person to use verbosity as a substitute for truth. ...you rang?  
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:He wouldn't be the first person to use verbosity as a substitute for truth. That's Ayn Rand to a T isn't it? Super passionate and wordy with no substance
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
I am going to harp on this again because it has been bugging me, but JRod, you really need to loving stop with the weird coopting and misrepresentation of left libertarianism to try and score some brownie points by pretending that your idiocy is in any way "leftist." I will simply quote the summary from wikipedia:quote:Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social justice. In its oldest usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics, either anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. It later became associated with free-market libertarians when Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s. This left-wing market anarchism, which includes mutualism and Samuel Konkin III's agorism, appeals to left-wing concerns such as feminism, gender and sexuality, class, immigration, and environmentalism. Most recently, left-libertarianism refers to mostly non-anarchist political positions associated with Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs, and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources. Despite Rothbard's best efforts to conflate collectivist and egalitarian anarchist with right libertarianism, even those he rebranded (without consent or consensus) fail to come close to meeting any of the actual fundamental defining characteristics of Rothbard and Von Mises economic principles. The idea that individual liberty creates solidarity is absolutely insane given that left and right brands of libertarianism fundamentally disagree on the means through which you achieve individual liberty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Hey Jrode could you try, for a change, not writing a million words to say four things? All your flowery bullshit does is make you look like a deluded rear end in a top hat who's incapable of communicating a point in less than a day. His thesis is always buried in a few paragraphs of bullshit, and his points (often outright falsehoods) are buried in a few more. I even wrote a very helpful post trying to get jrode to use less fluffy bullshit language, but his next reply was as bad as any. Recently, he has taken to splitting his longer paragraphs into several 1-2 sentence paragraphs, like he's giving a speech or something. If the Galt speech is any evidence, libertarians apparently like to place huge amounts of fluff inbetween nonsensical diatribes or outright falsehoods. They think that having a wordy speech is the same as having a convincing speech. Let's look at an example: jrodefeld posted:Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else can devise any sort of policy that can undo all historical injustices of the past. Given that you yourself don't have any more workable a solution than I to deal with the theft of Native American property, then you ought to shut up and stop criticizing me on this point. Here we see an example of jrodefeld discussing a single idea over the length of a very long paragraph that has been broken up into chunks with a length of about two sentences. Simplified: jrodefeld posted:Yes, the Native Americans have a legitimate property rights grievance. We can't give them their land back, though, because they don't have any documentation. We also can't give them anything else, because that's not land. Also, taxes are theft, therefore you should seek to overthrow the government because you have a property rights grievance against them. These ideas that jrodefeld holds are moronic, so they need to be wrapped in flowery, more reasonable sounding language. "I concede that it will be unlikely that much property could be overturned because the theft of property happened so long ago and evidence to support overturning of current property claims would indeed be challenging" boils down to "they have no documentation so forget about the problem". "Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else can devise any sort of policy that can undo all historical injustices of the past. Given that you yourself don't have any more workable a solution than I to deal with the theft of Native American property, then you ought to shut up and stop criticizing me on this point" boils down to "stop bothering me with questions to which I don't have real answers"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This just in: Engineers are libertarians and all models are no different from libertarianism "As an engineer, I understood that the natural world operated according to fixed laws. Through my studies, I came to realize that there were, like wise, laws that govern human well being." - Charles Koch talking about why he came to believe in Praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:"As an engineer, I understood that the natural world operated according to fixed laws. Through my studies, I came to realize that there were, like wise, laws that govern human well being." - Charles Koch talking about why he came to believe in Praxeology. Charles Koch - Speaking for all engineers everywhere. Nice appeal to authority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:"As an engineer, I understood that the natural world operated according to fixed laws. Through my studies, I came to realize that there were, like wise, laws that govern human well being." - Charles Koch talking about why he came to believe in Praxeology. As an application developer, Charles Koch is an idiot for thinking Praxeology is anything but a joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Charles Koch - Speaking for all engineers everywhere. Nice appeal to authority. If you don't think there's a real connection there I don't know what to tell ya. Libertarianism is a neat (as in clean, orderly) little model for how society and human relations ought to work, and this appeals to people with a certain mindset. The fact that it's a poo poo model is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If you don't think there's a real connection there I don't know what to tell ya. Libertarianism is a neat (as in clean, orderly) little model for how society and human relations ought to work, and this appeals to people with a certain mindset. The fact that it's a poo poo model is irrelevant. The fact that its a poo poo and nonfunctional model is why comparing it to engineering models of an industrial process or scientific models of a water processor is wrong. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If you don't think there's a real connection there I don't know what to tell ya. Libertarianism is a neat (as in clean, orderly) little model for how society and human relations ought to work, and this appeals to people with a certain mindset. The fact that it's a poo poo model is irrelevant. Conflating this goofy mindset with what engineers do is a load of crap though, sorry. An engineering model is only useful to the extent that its assumptions reflect reality and what is neglected doesn't meaningfully affect the answer you get at whatever degree of precision you need. If your empirical results diverge from what the model predicts, you have to go back and revisit your assumptions and refine the model. In other words, the complete opposite from what praxeology claims to be able to do. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The fact that its a poo poo and nonfunctional model is why comparing it to engineering models of an industrial process or scientific models of a water processor is wrong. All models are functional within the confines of their assumptions, when those assumptions are valid. Engineering models are just as non-functional when applied outside the constraints of the assumptions used to derive them. Not understanding this occasionally kills people btw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:All models are functional within the confines of their assumptions, when those assumptions are valid. Engineering models are just as non-functional when applied outside the constraints of the assumptions used to derive them. Not understanding this occasionally kills people btw. And what are the confines of praxeology, within which it is functional? Sucking yourself off while thinking deep thoughts? Is this comparable to the functional confines of theology by any chance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:All models are functional within the confines of their assumptions, when those assumptions are valid. Engineering models are just as non-functional when applied outside the constraints of the assumptions used to derive them. Not understanding this occasionally kills people btw. And in the case of praxeology, the realm "outside the constraints of the assumptions used to derive them" is "the entire actual universe". Which is why it's different from engineering, where models are developed to agree with the actual universe and are changed when they don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The fact that its a poo poo and nonfunctional model is why comparing it to engineering models of an industrial process or scientific models of a water processor is wrong. Engineers who treat models as absolutes rather than best estimates (like all of science is), and who operate on wrote instruction over understanding of the nature of the situation or thing being modeled, are absolutely real and absolutely a problem. These are the people who don't understand our models and doctrines in engineering and design are all empirically derived from observation, instead seeing them as inviolate rules that never ever deviate. They see society as a design problem, and assume the rules they think are true are the same kind of immutable principle; the idea that human interactions are so complex we have only barely begun to model them in any effective way does not occur to them, they know the rules for society so the reason things aren't perfect is because we aren't following the rules. Ironically it's a very dogmatic type of thinking, despite the numerous times libertarians will attack religion for not being rational. e: wait is BrandorKP trying to say Praexeology is as valid as engineering models or that it's not surprising that otherwise 'educated' people can be totally sucked into this bullshit Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:e: wait is BrandorKP trying to say Praexeology is as valid as engineering models or that it's not surprising that otherwise 'educated' people can be totally sucked into this bullshit Whichever ends up being more tenable
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:e: wait is BrandorKP trying to say Praexeology is as valid as engineering models or that it's not surprising that otherwise 'educated' people can be totally sucked into this bullshit Bandor believes that all science, engineering, philosophy, religion, folk tales, and D&D campaigns are equally valid (or invalid) and there's literally no way to know anything, so why not just agree that Jesus loves you and died for your sins of fornication?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Bandor believes that all science, engineering, philosophy, religion, folk tales, and D&D campaigns are equally valid (or invalid) and there's literally no way to know anything, so why not just agree that Jesus loves you and died for your sins of fornication? oh well then he's exactly the kind of person I was talking about and is a moron
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Engineers who treat models as absolutes rather than best estimates (like all of science is), and who operate on wrote instruction over understanding of the nature of the situation or thing being modeled, are absolutely real and absolutely a problem. These are the people who don't understand our models and doctrines in engineering and design are all empirically derived from observation, instead seeing them as inviolate rules that never ever deviate. No no no, I agree, you never treat the models as an absolute, but its a far better guess based on what evidence you have on hand than, say, praxeology which is making poo poo up and not even bothering to see if your models match what you know. Its part of why anything you can model you then run and compare the model to the results to fine tune your models. And yes, Brandor is arguing its valid, and Religious Apologism, Libertarianism, and Engineering are the same things as far as modelling. BrandorKP posted:All models are functional within the confines of their assumptions, when those assumptions are valid. Engineering models are just as non-functional when applied outside the constraints of the assumptions used to derive them. Not understanding this occasionally kills people btw. The difference being Engineers have to make assumptions within empirically definable values, and your model has to be fine tuned through testing to verify your assumptions. And based on your comparing Libertarianism to Engineering, you'd be the one to kill someone. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No no no, I agree, you never treat the models as an absolute, but its a far better guess based on what evidence you have on hand than, say, praxeology which is making poo poo up and not even bothering to see if your models match what you know. Its part of why anything you can model you then run and compare the model to the results to fine tune your models. Yeah, sorry CommieGIR I totally misread the conversation, I thought Bandor was trying to point out how, if someone only ever thinks of things in terms of Models, you end up with praxeology (which is why you get a lot of hardcore religious or libertarian engineers despite the nominally empirical nature of their work). But yeah, Praxeology is in no way the same thing as flow modelling or mechanical design doctrines or things like that. That's straight up one of the most irrational things I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes because of course the State monopolized courts and criminal "justice" system have no problems at all, right? This is a terrible analogy for many reasons. First off, Comcast is a service provider, and so the whole relationship is based upon the exchange of goods and services for money. However, the courts really aren't providing a service, they serve as an area where the law is executed. If I am a criminal, I may be paying the court for my trial, but I am certainly not entitled to the same things you might expect from Comcast. I can and should be able to end my association with Comcast. I can stop paying my cable bill at any time, and there goes my cable. But if I'm in the middle of a trial, can I stop paying my "court" bill and end the trial right then and there? If I'm on trial for murder, can I say "Hey, I don't want to pay for this anymore." And I guess I go free because court cases cost money and the only way to force me to trial is to coerce me to go to court. I truly marvel at the libertarian society. I can kill a man and not go to court because to force me to go to a trial would be coercion! You would have to use violence against me! It's amazing! quote:Why does this not equally apply to State monopolized courts? There can be repercussions. People could vote out the various people in government that are abusing the law. They could run to change the system. They could protest. They could loving start a revolution! But I don't understand the idea that the court has a monopoly on the final decision. By definition, somebody has to have a monopoly on the final decision, because the idea is that their word is final. If there's another step to go, you don't have the final decision. You know, you constantly talk about how a libertarian society would be more just, but that's an idiotic declaration because you're the one who is turning justice into a business transaction. Under your vision, I would pay the courts I want for justice, and what makes you think that the system you proposed, where the courts are literally businesses trying to attract a clientele won't be corrupted, if our current system which does not operate as a business already has plenty of corruption. quote: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. Why? Why would this work the way that you say it works. The courts that are going to make money are going to be the ones that are good to the people who give them money. Why do you suddenly think that the systems that create the power structure today would suddenly dissipate under your system? Also, how would the court system work in your world. If I killed a man, why would I ever go to court. I could keep saying "I don't like this court, I'm not going to pay for them, and to force me to have your trial here is coercion!" For someone who talks so much, you never take things to the next step. quote: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. There's a reason why we don't understand how it could work in practice: because it's ridiculous, and when we see how binding third-party arbitration works in practice today, we get really scared when we see your proposal. It's like you don't know anything. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/have-you-signed-away-your-right-sue And many of us do criticize the current court and justice system. We're not defending how it's been implemented. We want to see a better justice system. Finally, being open to alternatives doesn't mean we're open to any alternatives. Just the sensible ones, and the one you're proposing is total nonsense. Can I give you a helpful hint, Jrodefeld? Stop being so intellectually lazy. A lot of your ideas are very primitive, and not really well-explored. Take your conclusions to the next level. Look for flaws in your arguments. Because honestly, most of the flaws I find are not these really clever flaws that demonstrate an intense understanding on the things you discuss. Rather, they're me spending five seconds trying to argue against your claims. You make a lot of paper thin arguments because you don't take the time to see where they might be structurally weak. And don't think using flowery language is making them stronger. A weak argument eloquently stated is just nice smelling poo poo. I will say the biggest issue with your arguments are that they are lazy. They are just so incredibly lazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 02:24
|
|
