|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Hey Jrode, if I emmigrate to a different country and agree to abide by their laws and pay all taxes as a resident of that country and in return benefit from public services, have I entered into a voluntary contract with the state? No, you've just bought stolen goods. Furthermore *fart*
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 01:12 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:48 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Conservatism is nothing if not hypocritical. I wonder if we could get a bunch of would-be conservatives on-board with a bunch of liberal policies and taxation if we just had people sign something before graduating high school or somesuch. "If I choose to join society then I agree to be bound by its rules, otherwise I'm free to leave and go live somewhere else" or something like that But if I don't sign the contract MEN WITH GUNS will force me out of the country. No don't ask how this would be the same if it was a DRO
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 01:48 |
|
DarklyDreaming posted:But if I don't sign the contract MEN WITH GUNS will force me out of the country. No don't ask how this would be the same if it was a DRO And it's only not technically the same as a property owner forcing you off their property, because the land was taken by force. Which I suppose brings up the problem of property owners having purchased crown land, as that is clearly stolen land whether prior ownership can be established or not due to the illegitimate nature of the state.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 03:26 |
|
DarklyDreaming posted:But if I don't sign the contract MEN WITH GUNS will force me out of the country. No don't ask how this would be the same if it was a DRO because nobody will remember how to make bullets
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 03:27 |
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Yeah, some cities have ordinances. It's not "Oh, hey, your lawn is looking a little shaggy today," it's more like "the grass is over 12" high, maybe you should mow the lawn." They're just taking after Ayn Rand. Oh... wait. Are we talking real lawns or lawns? team overhead smash posted:Okay, you don't seem to have realised the problem I was drawing up that the premise and conclusions to your argument are simplistic strawmen that do not represent either reality or the views of 'left-progressives'. This is a really good post by the way and deserves to be on every page until it is addressed. Caros fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Oct 12, 2015 |
# ? Oct 12, 2015 03:29 |
|
He won't answer those points that the US and Britain did not become developed industrial powers using laissez-faire. Hell he never even answered your healthcare posts from last year Caros. He is going to focus on the scattered posts pointing out how racist all this North American homesteading stuff is and claim victory because left-liberal-progressive-muslim-socialist-kenyan-jacobins have no arguments and only know how to cry "racism!"
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 05:12 |
|
VitalSigns posted:He won't answer those points that the US and Britain did not become developed industrial powers using laissez-faire. Hell he never even answered your healthcare posts from last year Caros. I know you're right. But there is always hope. Right? Right?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 05:15 |
|
Caros posted:I know you're right. But there is always hope. Right? Right? Have I ever told you the definition of Insanity? :vas: edit:
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 05:19 |
|
I think we should build concentration camps for muslims, leftists, and gays and then ban all non-Aryans from immigrating to our State. Go ahead an tell me I'm racist lieberals, but I'll have you know my words are those of the great Hans-Hermann Hoppe! Tremble with terror as you try to fling your accusations of "racism" at me. Don't worry Jrod, I'll take up the Libertarian cause while you're away!
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 05:24 |
|
*buys plutonium in an open-air market in the Khyber Pass* *builds time machine* *replaces 15-year old jrod's copy of Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland with Gloria Steinem's Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions*
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 05:27 |
|
VitalSigns posted:He won't answer those points that the US and Britain did not become developed industrial powers using laissez-faire. Hell he never even answered your healthcare posts from last year Caros. He has a long history of completely ignoring any and every post that actually disproves him or shows that his arguments are idiotic. He seriously sounds like a cult leader and I've pointed out he is engaging in some serious magical thinking. His arguments are full of fallacies and based on nonsense but if you point it out he either ignores you or goes "well if you were smart you'd realize it's obvious that..." Yes it's obvious, despite an entire human history's worth of evidence, that laws are stupid and bad and must all go away.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 06:26 |
|
Caros posted:Alright, wife's in bed, laptop has power and there is wi-fi I can crib off my phone. Lets do this. Lysaaaaaaander Spooooooner! You skirt the issue of taking a stand on which rules are best for society by stating that since all property rights are arbitrary, you know "whatever society democratically decides" should rule the day. I doubt you would take the same stand if the majority decided that it was right and proper to enslave some minority and force them to work hard labor for no wages. So obviously majority rule is no standard by which principled ethics ought to be determined. The first user principle is not arbitrary because it is derived logically from a previous moral principle, which is that of individual self-ownership. Let's term it "body-ownership" since "self" can be misleading to some people. What we are referring to here is that people should have the right to control over their own physical bodies. Whether or not you quibble over the use of "property right" as applied to peoples right to control their bodies, the claims are the same. I (as should everyone) should have the right to control my body as I see fit unless my actions aggress against another persons body or property (leaving aside our differences about what constitutes just property titles external to our bodies). Therefore, what I choose to eat or ingest should be up to me and me alone. When I go to sleep and get up in the morning should be my determination. When or if I exercise, who I decide to date or have sex with, are all things that individuals should have the final say on. Do you agree with this so far? Do you accept the principle that people ought to have the final say in the use of their physical bodies so long as they don't harm others? If you do NOT accept self-ownership, then your moral theory has some very serious problems that you have to account for. There would be no principled reason to oppose slavery or rape or murder. Sure you could try and make a utilitarian case for why it would be a net negative for society to permit these things, but it is easy to imagine situations where utilitarians could argue for such violations of human rights. Maybe slavery was found to be incredibly efficient in certain circumstances? What if an economist could demonstrate that a certain level of enslavement of physically gifted individuals would slightly raise the GDP if they were forced to work in certain jobs without pay? Or imagine a eugenicist arguing that it was okay to murder all mentally handicapped persons because they don't contribute much to society from a productivity standpoint, they require a huge amount of care for their entire lives and they "contaminate" the gene pool if they reproduce by passing along so-called "inferior" genes to future generations. These are obviously morally repugnant views but still there are a million ways to construct a utilitarian justification for their implementation. If you give up on the right of self-ownership, then what are you left to fall back on if a consequentialist has a stronger case in a given situation? I am quite sure that you didn't decide that murder is wrong because you studied the utilitarian effects and long term consequences for society for killing different groups of people some might consider "undesirable". Like most decent people, I assume that your view is that people have certain rights as human beings that ought to be respected, which includes not being murdered, raped or enslaved. This conception of "Natural Rights" had a great deal of influence on the founding of the United States and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It animated most abolitionists who fought to end slavery and grant equal rights to blacks in the United States. Whether or not these rights exist in nature, or are mere practical constructions of man is not as important as you think it is. We argue for certain ethical rules for civilized society based on our reason, the coherence of our arguments and the nature of man. Pretty much all religious and spiritual traditions teach that there is something inherently immoral about the taking of an innocent life. There has been a long-standing acknowledgment of the principle of self-ownership throughout the centuries. I hope you do agree with me that people should have the right to control their own bodies and not have force used against their bodies. So when determining how people are to acquire legitimate property outside of their physical bodies, the reason the libertarian principle of "original appropriation" makes the most sense is that there exists a tangible link between a person's ownership over his or her physical body and the external object that is brought into ownership. By plucking an untouched object out of nature and transforming it for your use, to further the attainment of your goals, you have thus imprinted your "self", which you own if you believe in self-ownership, onto a material object. Like a sculptor who carves a statue or a painter who paints a picture, the object that is transformed has an impression of you in it. So in what sense could any other person have a better claim over the use of such a scarce resource that the one who initially transformed it? Until he or she voluntarily gives it up in a contractual exchange of course. Now, collective ownership is not impermissible in a libertarian society. Individuals can freely contract with a group of others to enter into a partnership over the ownership of a piece of land, or a factory. There is nothing wrong with this. But someone had to originally have a claim on whatever property they are considering making into a collective. And that person, or people, who originally homesteaded the property must voluntarily enter into a contractual partnership to have a collective ownership. A group of people cannot simply decide that they ought to own part of some land and force the original owner to vacate the land they homesteaded. If you do accept people's right to universal control over their physical bodies so long as they don't hurt others, and you don't have to accept the phrase "ownership" to accept this general idea, then you ought to accept the notion that property rights in external objects should be in some way linked to this antecedent principle which hopefully has been agreed to. So original appropriation is not just as defensible as any other system of property acquisition, it is much more defensible because it logically follows the acknowledgment of self-ownership which most people actually DO accept.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 08:22 |
|
jrodefeld posted:You skirt the issue of taking a stand on which rules are best for society by stating that since all property rights are arbitrary, you know "whatever society democratically decides" should rule the day. every single part of this is the most ironic poo poo you've said you coward
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 08:26 |
|
jrodefeld posted:You skirt the issue of taking a stand on which rules are best for society by stating that since all property rights are arbitrary, you know "whatever society democratically decides" should rule the day. How much are you worth? Remember, not your labor, you.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 08:35 |
|
SedanChair posted:Or they can choose to take it from him and give it away. This is moral and correct. No it's not. It is moral for YOU to give your apple to the person who is starving. And let's be real here. There is no shortage of people who will gladly help people who don't have enough to eat. The people on this planet who have real food shortages are those who live in the third world, usually under repressive dictators far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism. But let me ask this. Why is it that leftists seem to confine their redistributive goals to within the borders of existing States? Why shouldn't all the richer countries be forced to give up any of their "excess" wealth and transfer it to poorer countries until everyone on the planet is materially equal? If we speak about the abuse of the 1%, WE are the global 1% and are just as fabulously wealthy to a poor person living in North Korea or some African nation rune by an authoritarian regime than a Wall Street banker seems to us. There is no logical reason why your line of thinking ought not to lead to a world government that redistributes money across the globe, which would naturally mean a massive transfer from the West to Eastern nations and a drastic reduction in our standard of living in the United States and Canada, and much of Europe for that matter. But most socialists done take their views to the logical conclusion. Why is that?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 08:36 |
jrodefeld posted:No it's not. It is moral for YOU to give your apple to the person who is starving. And let's be real here. There is no shortage of people who will gladly help people who don't have enough to eat. The people on this planet who have real food shortages are those who live in the third world, usually under repressive dictators far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism. You seem to be posting from an alternate universe. We can't help you in this one.
|
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 08:41 |
|
Hey jrod I have an urgent question, sorry for typos: phoneposting under some emotional stress. Say I fall off a balcony and somehow manage to grab one hand onto the balcony of the condo below me. The property owner comes out and says I'm trespassing and orders me to let go. I tell him I will die if I do and I have a human right to live, but he doesn't agree and answers that human rights are property rights and I cannot impose a positive obligation on him to allow me to use his property to support my life. I would appreciate if you don't delay too long, he is looking ticked off and starting to mutter something about victims and aggression. Update: His DRO has arrived but they support his right to use force to defend his property. I think the baseball bats they are using on my fingers is unreasonable, but they insist it's retaliatory self-defense. They've agreed to arbitration of our dispute in a complex series of free-market appeals courts but only if I cease my aggression against their client's property so they can stand down their bats. Do I have the right to insist the court venue convene next to my smashed remains on the street below, even though it's against their policy to approve out-of-network venues? I don't think that's fair when they know I won't be able to appear anywhere else. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Oct 12, 2015 |
# ? Oct 12, 2015 08:46 |
|
jrodefeld posted:There is no shortage of people who will gladly help people who don't have enough to eat. The people on this planet who have real food shortages are those who live in the third world, usually under repressive dictators far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism. okay so first of all, this first sentence has been proven to be incorrect many times in the old thread. second of all, just because their lives suck under dictators doesn't mean if you go full throttle into libertariantown it's going to be better, this isn't an either or decision
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 08:51 |
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Jesus Christ. I mis-typed that. I meant "the factories to the factory workers". If this sounds strange for a libertarian to be parroting Marxist sounding remedies, it ought not be if you think it through. For a libertarian (at least the anarchist libertarian), all State-owned property is inherently illegitimate and must have been acquired through theft. Now, if an original homesteader cannot be found to return stolen property to, but the evidence is irrefutable that the property WAS stolen, then at the very least the thief must vacate the land. There is a very real danger that, if we suddenly get a situation where we can downsize or abolish the State, as a last minute "reform" the State will simply auction off the public lands to big corporations who will now own massive amounts of land in a libertarian society. This is intolerable because the State had no right to sell this land to anyone since they had no just property title to the land in the first place. The second best option is for the land to be parceled out among the State employees and individual workers who actually worked on the property. Based on how much they worked and what they did, the amount of land to which they are entitled will vary. But this approach means that public land will be privatized in a just and equitable way, not as a last minute crony capitalist giveaway. I'll end this by mentioning that Hans Hermann Hoppe actually wrote about this principle. I don't want to hear anything about how you think Hoppe is a racist or whatever else. That is a different discussion and I am not interested in going down that path. The fact remains that I agree with this principle wholeheartedly.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 08:53 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't want to hear anything about how you think Hoppe is a racist or whatever else. Good job starting poo poo while saying you don't want to start poo poo, coward
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 09:09 |
|
"look i don't think he's racist, and i'm gonna say that, but i don't want to hear you say anything to the contrary" - a coward
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 09:12 |
|
jrodefeld posted:No it's not. It is moral for YOU to give your apple to the person who is starving. And let's be real here. There is no shortage of people who will gladly help people who don't have enough to eat. The people on this planet who have real food shortages are those who live in the third world, usually under repressive dictators far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism. 1) What do you think that the Soviet Union was trying to do by spreading communism? 2) The endgame of a world government that sends resources where they're most needed is almost something that goes without saying; yes, that is a desirable goal of progressiveness in general, I would think. But this can occur without a "drastic reduction in our standard of living", something that you've assumed must happen in order for those with the most give to those with the least. That conclusion is bullshit, there are a million reasons that I can point to that prove that that's bullshit, but I'm not going to bother because you wouldn't listen anyway
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 09:31 |
|
Ugh, I was literally about to go to sleep you rear end in a top hat. I'ma be quick.jrodefeld posted:You skirt the issue of taking a stand on which rules are best for society by stating that since all property rights are arbitrary, you know "whatever society democratically decides" should rule the day. I'm not skirting anything, I'm saying facts. The rules that are best for society are entirely arbitrary to that society. If I were living in a society in which a majority thought it was proper to enslave a minority by force for no wages then that sort of presupposes the idea that I grew up in a society where that was a normal and morally correct thing to do. My morality is a facet of how I was raised. If I was raised as a mongol I would fully believe in the divine right of the Khan to murder the everloving poo poo out of anyone who doesn't submit and offer tribute at the mere sight of his armies, whereas by contrast, having been born in the 1980's I happen to think that idea is hilariously antiquated. Morality is subjective. quote:The first user principle is not arbitrary because it is derived logically from a previous moral principle, which is that of individual self-ownership. Let's term it "body-ownership" since "self" can be misleading to some people. What we are referring to here is that people should have the right to control over their own physical bodies. I hate to break it to you Jrodefeld, but this argument is bunk. You are arguing that first user principle isn't arbitrary because it is logically derived from a moral principle, but that moral principle is itself arbitrary. We can see this clear as day by the very fact that different societies across history, even different societies in this day and age have vastly different opinions on what is and is not moral. The mongols did not think murder of non-mongols was an immoral act, but I certainly do. I think slavery is a horrible act, but much of the united states thought it was a grand old thing for centuries. As did the aztecs. As did... actually most of humanity at one point or another. You are making an argument that you're logically deriving this, but to that I ask, from where! Where does your objective morality derive and how can you prove that it is objectively true. And when I say objectively true I mean it needs to be provable in the same way that 2+2=4 you need to be able to objectively and unequivocally prove that individual self ownership is a universal law which is patently absurd. I mean lets take something unobjectionable. Murder is bad. We'd both agree that this is morally wrong, but is it objectively wrong? Well if I'm religious, yes, god says thou shalt not kill. If I'm not religious then who the gently caress knows. Most people don't like murder but frankly that is for utilitarian reasons more than anything else. For all we know the universal rule is that "The goal of all life is death" and Khorne is up there on his skull throne screaming "Kill each other you fuckers". Why is your moral principle of "Self ownership" more valid than the mongol moral principle of "obedience and submission to the Great Khan". The fact that it appeals more to you has nothing to do with its universal morality and the simple reality of it is that we have no way of knowing what objective morality is. Your guess is as good as the mongols, and absent objective, provable morality your entire argument hinges on a moral system that is as arbitrary as anything else. If the morals underpinning it are arbitrary then it doesn't matter what logic you use to derive first user principles. If I start from a moral belief of the white man's burden I can easily find my way to the logical endpoint that slavery is a just and moral system to help the negro, but that sure as gently caress doesn't make me right. quote:Whether or not you quibble over the use of "property right" as applied to peoples right to control their bodies, the claims are the same. I (as should everyone) should have the right to control my body as I see fit unless my actions aggress against another persons body or property (leaving aside our differences about what constitutes just property titles external to our bodies). Therefore, what I choose to eat or ingest should be up to me and me alone. When I go to sleep and get up in the morning should be my determination. When or if I exercise, who I decide to date or have sex with, are all things that individuals should have the final say on. Why? Sorry, I hate to be pedantic but why? My 'quibbles' aren't some minor thing you can just shrug off, they are an attack at the very underpinning of your entire system of thought. I don't even necessarily disagree with the idea that everyone should be able to use their body as they see fit but you are again assuming facts not in evidence. You are stating a personal preference, not an objective fact, and absent that objective reality it doesn't matter what train of logic you use to 'prove' your point. quote:Do you agree with this so far? I agree that your argument roughly matches up with the morality in which I was raised. I don't agree that it is in any way universal or that it forms the basis for the later facets of your argument. quote:Do you accept the principle that people ought to have the final say in the use of their physical bodies so long as they don't harm others? Stop with the Socratic bullshit please. As an aside I think this is lovely in theory but that applies to a lot of libertarian ideas in general. The problem is that humans are not perfect spheres on friction less surfaces and "so long as they don't harm others" is a phrase so open to interpretation that I could strap the state of Florida to some sort of star trek warp engine and fly through it. quote:If you do NOT accept self-ownership, then your moral theory has some very serious problems that you have to account for. There would be no principled reason to oppose slavery or rape or murder. Sure you could try and make a utilitarian case for why it would be a net negative for society to permit these things, but it is easy to imagine situations where utilitarians could argue for such violations of human rights. Maybe slavery was found to be incredibly efficient in certain circumstances? What if an economist could demonstrate that a certain level of enslavement of physically gifted individuals would slightly raise the GDP if they were forced to work in certain jobs without pay? You really don't understand how morality works do you. Morality is nothing more than a system of social mores developed by hairless apes to keep people from engaging in what is anti-social behavior. Aztecs murdered the poo poo out of people and that was moral for the Aztecs. Mongols raped so hard that one out of every two hundred living men is a direct line descendant of mighty Genghis Khan, and that was moral for them. Homosexuality was immoral less than a century ago and is now just another aspect of human existence. My moral theory cannot 'have problems' because morality is just a reflection of the preferences of a group of people. It can 'have problems' to an outside observer, you can certainly disapprove of my moral choices (I think yours are disgusting!) but that doesn't change anything from my perspective. As for the rest of your argument, sure there would be a principled reason to oppose murder or slavery, because they are wrong! For example, it is possible to believe that people shouldn't be allowed to inject heroin directly into their bloodstream while at the same time thinking that murder is wrong. In fact 86% of americans are in favor of keeping heroin as a controlled substance, and I guarantee you that the number opposed to murder is 99% or higher. Hell there are people who are in favor of executions while opposed to murder, figure that one out. Human morality is not a logical system Jrodefeld, it is a system of preferences that in many cases is based off nothing more complicated than a gut feeling. For example, why do I think stealing is wrong? Is it because I carefully and logically considered the economic effects of theft and weighted them against logical first principles? Hell no! Its because when I was three I probably got smacked with a wooden spoon for trying to take something and my mom told me stealing was wrong. Now you're entirely welcome to try and logic your way into your own particular moral system (which is super weird btw) but the system you end up with is still essentially as arbitrary as any others. I think murder is wrong because murder is wrong. You think murder is wrong because it violates self-ownership, but that is just passing the buck because then we get to the question of "Why is a violation of self-ownership wrong" to which the only answer I've ever heard a libertarian come up with is "Because it is." Give me a reason why Self-Ownership is or should be inviolate that doesn't boil down to "Because people think it should be." quote:Or imagine a eugenicist arguing that it was okay to murder all mentally handicapped persons because they don't contribute much to society from a productivity standpoint, they require a huge amount of care for their entire lives and they "contaminate" the gene pool if they reproduce by passing along so-called "inferior" genes to future generations. Wait, are we talking about Hans Hermann Hoppe again? quote:If you give up on the right of self-ownership, then what are you left to fall back on if a consequentialist has a stronger case in a given situation? I am quite sure that you didn't decide that murder is wrong because you studied the utilitarian effects and long term consequences for society for killing different groups of people some might consider "undesirable". Like most decent people, I assume that your view is that people have certain rights as human beings that ought to be respected, which includes not being murdered, raped or enslaved. For this I'm just going to refer you to my above comments. I don't believe murder is wrong because of utilitarian or consequentialist reasons, I believe it is wrong because the culture in which I was raised instilled in me the belief that murder is wrong. It is a belief, one not based in facts or logic but in cultural indoctrination. Much like your belief that the 'right' of self-ownership is something that exists and is or should be inviolate. Mind you I believe most of these things have their roots in utilitarian arguments to begin with. To take another example, the taboo against incest is largely based around the very real issues that result from that behavior. People consider sex with siblings to be wrong because it is something we are taught (often without question at a young age) but it no doubt originated due to a combination of social problems and genetic issues way back in the day. Likewise morality regarding murder is almost certainly derived from the huge issues that murder brings to the table, but for most people that consequentialist argument was lost centuries before and has simply become "Thou shalt not kill" even for no other reason than "Thou shalt not". quote:This conception of "Natural Rights" had a great deal of influence on the founding of the United States and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It animated most abolitionists who fought to end slavery and grant equal rights to blacks in the United States. Appeal to authority or appeal to nature, take your pick. I couldn't give two flying fucks what rich slave owners or Lysander Spooner and his ilk thought centuries ago. In particular I couldn't give a single gently caress about his backwards thoughts on natural law. quote:Whether or not these rights exist in nature, or are mere practical constructions of man is not as important as you think it is. We argue for certain ethical rules for civilized society based on our reason, the coherence of our arguments and the nature of man. Pretty much all religious and spiritual traditions teach that there is something inherently immoral about the taking of an innocent life. There has been a long-standing acknowledgment of the principle of self-ownership throughout the centuries. I disagree, I think the distinction between something existing in nature (and thus being in essence an immutable law) or whether they are constructions of man no different than any other 'right' or 'law' is immensely important. Moreover your appeal to authority (religion in this case) doesn't mean much to me. Unless we're arguing theology, which we aren't, we are talking about human institutions that largely existed to constrain problematic behavior. Religion was a good way to impose social control over people and to prevent anti-social behavior. Pointing to them and acting as if that somehow means murder is inherently immoral is a fallacy. To top it all off your 'long standing acknowledgement' is just baffling to me. I'm going to go back through some of the top empires in human history: Egypt - Famously owned a shiton of slaves. Assyrian/Persian - May or may not have abolished slavery under Cyrus the Great. Still had tons of debt slaves and almost certainly had a lot of 'servants' Seleucid -Loved them some slaves. Rome - You better believe these guys loved some slaves Abbasids - "Conquests had brought enormous wealth and large numbers of slaves tot he muslim elite" Mongols - I could go on but I figure you get my point at this point. Slavery is an institution as old as loving time. The idea that there has ever been some historical acknowledgement of the principle of self ownership is a loving joke. If you look at any human living he is probably descended both from slaves and slave owners at some point in his genealogy, and even societies that didn't have slaves had serfs, plebs or other such underclasses that the concept of self-ownership was a distant myth to. Please stop stating wildly ahistorical nonsense as fact. quote:I hope you do agree with me that people should have the right to control their own bodies and not have force used against their bodies. Sure. That doesn't mean I agree with any of your other assumptions derived from this relatively basic concept. quote:So when determining how people are to acquire legitimate property outside of their physical bodies, the reason the libertarian principle of "original appropriation" makes the most sense is that there exists a tangible link between a person's ownership over his or her physical body and the external object that is brought into ownership. By plucking an untouched object out of nature and transforming it for your use, to further the attainment of your goals, you have thus imprinted your "self", which you own if you believe in self-ownership, onto a material object. Like a sculptor who carves a statue or a painter who paints a picture, the object that is transformed has an impression of you in it. So in what sense could any other person have a better claim over the use of such a scarce resource that the one who initially transformed it? Until he or she voluntarily gives it up in a contractual exchange of course. It doesn't make the 'most sense'. For one thing lets be perfectly clear. For something that 'makes the most sense' it seems really odd that it has never been used in all of human history as a theory of property rights. For something so glaringly obvious humanity has had plenty of chances to see it and has missed time and time again. Doesn't that in and of itself make you wonder? In addition, even if we accept your silly premise that you own yourself, how does that translate into you owning the fruits of your labor. I mean I want you to read the part I've bolded above and try and imagine you are a person on a street who is hearing this for the first time. That sounds like something out of a loving Harry Potter book, not a legitimate basis for uprooting all of our society according to your weird, cultist beliefs. Why does you taking an apple give you ownership of it? Why should it? You've already agreed with me in your previous posts that property rights are arbitrary and subject to human agreement. If you pluck that apple and no one else agrees with you then as the rubber meets the road you have no property right because property rights are fiction. The argument that you have the 'best claim' is entirely subjective here and honestly boils down to your arguing "Finders keepers." Property rights are arbitrary. They are a thing that solely exists because people choose to believe they exist, and they do that to solve conflicts and deal with material scarcity. With that in mind why is an argument that again, boils down to "First come first serve" more valid to the group (who ultimately determine these things) than one based around need? Need before greed is the standard loot system in World of Warcraft, not free for all for a very good reason after all. quote:Now, collective ownership is not impermissible in a libertarian society. Individuals can freely contract with a group of others to enter into a partnership over the ownership of a piece of land, or a factory. There is nothing wrong with this. But someone had to originally have a claim on whatever property they are considering making into a collective. And that person, or people, who originally homesteaded the property must voluntarily enter into a contractual partnership to have a collective ownership. A group of people cannot simply decide that they ought to own part of some land and force the original owner to vacate the land they homesteaded. Oh how nice of you. After you wildly and utterly destroy the way of life preferred by billions to serve your weird little cult you'll let us set up collective ownership if we want to. How nice. Alternately, you can simply go get hosed because no one is going to agree to your Mammon worshiping cult. As to the latter part of your statement... reality disagrees wholeheartedly. Not only is homesteading not something that exists in reality in any significant amount (nor will it) but the group can indeed simply decide that they ought to own some part of the land. We have that now in fact, its called eminent domain. Just because you personally don't like something does not mean that it is an immutable fact of nature that it is abhorrent. I don't like peas but I don't think society should obliterate all peas (well I do but I also realize that is unrealistic.) quote:If you do accept people's right to universal control over their physical bodies so long as they don't hurt others, and you don't have to accept the phrase "ownership" to accept this general idea, then you ought to accept the notion that property rights in external objects should be in some way linked to this antecedent principle which hopefully has been agreed to. Why? Again, what is the mechanism that goes from one to the other. Your argument is "I own myself" ----> "Therefore I own my labor" ----> "Therefore..." but I can stop you at point two. Even if we acknowledge that you own yourself, I don't have to, nor 'ought' I accept the notion that property rights should be linked to your weird obsession with owning yourself. Property rights are whatever people say they are. Property rights could literally be decided by a modified version of this: We could literally have a property system based entirely around the Magic: The Gathering card Thieves Auction with slightly revised text and that would be just as arbitrary as the system you are talking about. Your proposed system is based off a faulty premise that self-ownership is an objective moral principle from which you can derive other facets of existence. In reality self-ownership is a concept as nebulous as thou shalt not kill, it is something we might agree upon today, but it is ethereal, it isn't an immutable fact but a consensus agreement. You can't logically derive the first user principle as the ideal property rights system from self-ownership because self-ownership is neither an objective universal constant nor a logical position. Its an opinion, and if you're starting from an opinion you can just as easily derive "Blacks should be slaves" as you can "homesteading is the poo poo." Really the only argument you have to play is a consequentialist one. You can certainly make the argument that in the world we live in you think a system of property derived from the subjective belief in self-ownership and first use would be best, you just can't make a solid argument that first use is somehow special because I agree with the basic concept of self-ownership. I believe that people should have access to medical care if we as a society have the ability to provide it. Full stop, I think if we live in a society where that is possible (and we do) that it should go without saying. That is as solid a starting point as your self-ownership argument.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 09:41 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I'll end this by mentioning that Hans Hermann Hoppe actually wrote about this principle. I don't want to hear anything about how you think Hoppe is a racist or whatever else. That is a different discussion and I am not interested in going down that path. The fact remains that I agree with this principle wholeheartedly. Not to belabor but it isn't just we who think Hoppe is a racist. In the libertarian thread you yourself showed that you were leaning that was when it was pointed out to you that he hosts an annual conference for Race Realists. Just making sure everyone is aware.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 09:44 |
|
Caros posted:This is a really good post by the way and deserves to be on every page until it is addressed. D'awwwwwww, shucks.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 09:53 |
|
jrodefeld posted:No it's not. It is moral for YOU to give your apple to the person who is starving. And let's be real here. There is no shortage of people who will gladly help people who don't have enough to eat. The people on this planet who have real food shortages are those who live in the third world, usually under repressive dictators far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism. Can you find one self-described socialist who wants to confine wealth redistribution to within existing states, or a developed country which doesn't contribute some amount to international aid and development? This just has no basis in reality, why do you think 'socialists' think this? Literally The Worst posted:"look i don't think he's racist, and i'm gonna say that, but i don't want to hear you say anything to the contrary" - a coward Tbf, he's already dealt with this one, segregation isn't racist, it's just common sense to keep the other out of your society. jrodefeld posted:And when we finally abandon these pointless detours about what Hoppe said at this point or Rothbard at that point, on multiple occasions you try to steer the conversation back towards making me answer for something someone else said. At one point when we were talking about a completely unrelated topic, I happened to use the word "forced integration" and you threw a bit of a fit, speaking about how racist that was and you brought up Hoppe again. What I meant by the word, which was admittedly poorly chosen, had nothing to do with Hoppe or segregation or Jim Crow or anything else.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 09:57 |
|
its also worth pointing out that hoppe defines in/out groups along racial lines probably something to do with being mad fuckin racist!
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 10:00 |
|
The only way he can understand the principle of bodily autonomy is through the notion of self-ownership i.e. he's already utterly convinced that people are essentially no more than pieces of property, and all that's left is to quibble about who owns them. The only reason he's not a member of a junta death squad is because none are presently convenient.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 12:20 |
|
jrodefeld posted:But let me ask this. Why is it that leftists seem to confine their redistributive goals to within the borders of existing States? Do they, indeed? I know a lot of leftists who conceive of social justice as also being an international project based on seeking to redress the structural injustice that is the legacy of colonialism. jrodefeld posted:I mis-typed that. I meant "the factories to the factory workers". If this sounds strange for a libertarian to be parroting Marxist sounding remedies, it ought not be if you think it through. It's actually not very strange at all. If you read between the lines of, say, Ayn Rand's historical narrative upon which he bases her ideology, you see that she is a materialist who views history as being about the way societies organize to meet their material needs, that it therefore progresses according to technological advances in how people do that, that the productive innovations of capitalism rent asunder the tyranny and mysticism of the feudal order, the the leaders of this movement are constantly seeking to innovate in pursuit of profit, that the world they made is mediated by market exchange, and that it has an oppressed class which is responsible for all the wealth of the world and an oppressor class that is parasitic to them. This is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. She simply disagrees about who the oppressors and oppressed really are. Granted, she earned her degree in Social Pedagogy in a Soviet university, so something was bound to rub off, but it's not just her. It's you. In your OP, you go on and on about how necessary the developments in productive technology provided by capitalism were to making socialism possible. This is stock-standard Marxist stage theory. The only difference (and the advantage of the Marxist view, IMO) is that you somehow think that because something was necessary for a particular social transformation, its conditions will always be necessary. But this is a view that denies the possibility of social change throughout history, and is therefore somewhat contradictory. They also, incidentally, have a stateless society as their goal. But they recognize that capitalism as we know it is impossible with states protecting the propertied classes' interests.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 13:18 |
|
An economist being racist should not be considered a separate thing. The construct of race as we know it developed as a caste-like hierarchy for the reason of giving a reason for why some classes should be expropriated/enslaved/exterminated or otherwise not share in the economic and social benefits of the "good" classes' efforts. National socialism is a kind of collective socialism benefiting a specific, politically-defined group at the expense of outgroup members. Likewise, extractivist imperial policies that treat client states as mere places to extract natural wealth and labor from often came in tandem with theories of racial inferiority regarding the native populations in the places that they were conquering, as a way of excusing the plunder. They linger to today, where reactions to climate change that are willing to let members of the global south experience droughts until war or refugee crises happen are often tinged with ideas that the refugee's race is naturally violent, unable to "develop" or "evolve" as the "good" races have etc. open veins of latin america posted:In 1912 President William H. Taft declared: "The day is not far distant when three Stars and Stripes at three equidistant points will mark our territory: one at the North Pole, another at the Panama Canal, and the third at the South Pole. The whole hemisphere will be ours in fact as, by virtue of our superiority of race, it already is ours morally." Rodatose fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Oct 12, 2015 |
# ? Oct 12, 2015 13:27 |
|
Jrod, no one here really cares about Triple-H and his racism in this thread, we care about you and your bigotry. It just so happens that you get your bigoted views from people like Hoppe because you're an ignorant child who is incapable of thinking for himself, only parroting (or plagiarizing) from other libertarian "thinkers". That said, are you willing to recant your sexist statements about the existence of welfare sluts?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 13:40 |
|
Caros posted:Egypt - Famously owned a shiton of slaves. And slavery is alive and well across the world today, including in Jrode's beloved home country. Only difference is that now we call it "human trafficking" or "prison labor [in privately-run prisons]".
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 13:52 |
|
We have tried feeding the poor through random acts of charity. It was a miserable failure, starvation persisted, and homelessness continues to this day. Human rights trump property rights, children not starving to death and not sleeping in the streets trumps your right to an X-Box. Therefore it is not only moral to take apples from people who have excess but an obligation. I hope this clears up some confusion you've been having Jrod. Also please don't argue here if Hitler was racist. I agree with everything Hitler said and I'm not racist so obviously Hitler was not either. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Oct 12, 2015 |
# ? Oct 12, 2015 13:55 |
|
Alright, I'm going to remove the bits where you act like we don't believe in human rights, because you're a loving moron who doesn't even understand what he's trying to argue against.jrodefeld posted:I hope you do agree with me that people should have the right to control their own bodies and not have force used against their bodies. Yes, that is true. But that does not require us to think of our bodies as property! In fact, thinking that would be utterly incoherent. I've brought this up before, but if I have human rights because I own my body, can I sell my body? The ability to transfer property rights to someone else is the core facet of property as a concept. If I'm allowed to sell my body under your rules, then obviously slavery is a-okay, as long as the slave entered into it voluntarily (or had his body seized to pay a debt he could not otherwise repay). If I'm not, then who the gently caress are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body? And I know what you're thinking (because we've had this argument before): sure, people can sell themselves, but they can easily reassert self-ownership by fleeing the plantation. Which is obviously theft, and not how property rights work. If I sell someone my XBox and later regret it, I don't get to just take it back, that would be insane. jrodefeld posted:So when determining how people are to acquire legitimate property outside of their physical bodies, the reason the libertarian principle of "original appropriation" makes the most sense is that there exists a tangible link between a person's ownership over his or her physical body and the external object that is brought into ownership. By plucking an untouched object out of nature and transforming it for your use, to further the attainment of your goals, you have thus imprinted your "self", which you own if you believe in self-ownership, onto a material object. Like a sculptor who carves a statue or a painter who paints a picture, the object that is transformed has an impression of you in it. So in what sense could any other person have a better claim over the use of such a scarce resource that the one who initially transformed it? Until he or she voluntarily gives it up in a contractual exchange of course. Waitwaitwait. We assert property rights by imprinting a bit of our selves into the objects we own? Then how the hell can property be transferred to another person? They can't own bits of our selves (unless of course you're cool with slavery), and they didn't do the magic ritual that gave us that link. And make no mistake, what you're talking about here isn't reason or logic, it is literally magic. You're beaming your soul into poo poo. jrodefeld posted:Now, collective ownership is not impermissible in a libertarian society. Individuals can freely contract with a group of others to enter into a partnership over the ownership of a piece of land, or a factory. There is nothing wrong with this. But someone had to originally have a claim on whatever property they are considering making into a collective. And that person, or people, who originally homesteaded the property must voluntarily enter into a contractual partnership to have a collective ownership. A group of people cannot simply decide that they ought to own part of some land and force the original owner to vacate the land they homesteaded. No. gently caress that and gently caress you. There isn't anything special about your loving homestead principle, and if a factory owner is exploiting his workers he should absolutely be stripped of his property. Doing otherwise would be grossly immoral. jrodefeld posted:So original appropriation is not just as defensible as any other system of property acquisition, it is much more defensible because it logically follows the acknowledgment of self-ownership which most people actually DO accept. No, they don't. Sure, ask someone on the street if they have the right to control their body, and they'll say yes. But if you ask them if their body is a piece of property that they happen to own, they'll call you a loving weirdo. That is not how people think, and you really need to talk to people outside of libertarian message boards if you don't get that. Next Post. jrodefeld posted:No it's not. It is moral for YOU to give your apple to the person who is starving. And let's be real here. There is no shortage of people who will gladly help people who don't have enough to eat. The people on this planet who have real food shortages are those who live in the third world, usually under repressive dictators far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism. Jesus Christ. Look at this. Look at what you typed. There absolutely is a shortage of people who will help those who don't have enough to eat. That's why there are people who don't have enough to eat. There isn't a global shortage of food; the world produces more than enough to feed everyone. What we don't have is the desire to help them from the people who can do so. If you want a glimpse of the ugly reality of human nature, walk down a city street with some people you know, and give money to a homeless person in front of them. And wait, what the hell are you talking about with that "far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism" thing? Is there actually somewhere on the planet that you wouldn't say that about? If so, please tell us where, so we can laugh at you. jrodefeld posted:But let me ask this. Why is it that leftists seem to confine their redistributive goals to within the borders of existing States? Why shouldn't all the richer countries be forced to give up any of their "excess" wealth and transfer it to poorer countries until everyone on the planet is materially equal? If we speak about the abuse of the 1%, WE are the global 1% and are just as fabulously wealthy to a poor person living in North Korea or some African nation rune by an authoritarian regime than a Wall Street banker seems to us. We don't limit ourselves! Like, internationalism is one of the hallmarks of leftism. The problem is that you consider everyone who isn't a libertarian to be a leftist, so you assume we all talk like Obama or whoever the AnCap Boogieman of the Day is. And yeah, if you actually bothered to ask any of us instead of just assuming whatever beliefs you felt like assigning to us, you'd see a lot more support for foreign aid than you'd expect. And no, those transfers would not see a "drastic reduction in our standard of living," because there is shitloads of excess wealth literally just sitting around in corporate bank accounts, waiting to find some kind of use. I do enjoy the "and much of Europe for that matter," though, as if western Europe has some kind of lower tier of living standard than the US.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 13:56 |
|
I've been browsing through the thread It seems to go something like this: Angry goon: "humans are not property, you shithead. When humans become property it invariably brings slavery and horrible exploitation." OP:"what you fail to see is that libertarian principals are perfect in every way and *wall of words designed to obfuscate just how much of a racist authoritarian I am*" Am I getting this right?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 14:01 |
|
Property is eft.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 14:02 |
|
Yeah, pretty much. Except you're missing that it is you who is the real racist, because the USA had slavery! Now let me tell you about how the Union had no right to go to war with the poor ol' Confederacy
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 14:04 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:Property is eft. hosed up if true.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 14:08 |
|
8 pages in an OP has failed to explain why I should care about property rights. Human rights are so much better.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 14:26 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:48 |
|
jrodefeld posted:You skirt the issue of taking a stand on which rules are best for society by stating that since all property rights are arbitrary, you know "whatever society democratically decides" should rule the day. Buddy you can have multiple rights. Not just one right from which all others must be logically derived. Thinking that you can or should use reason alone to derive human rights is literally insane and one of the more fundimental things separating you from others in this thread.
|
# ? Oct 12, 2015 14:46 |