|
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. "Majority rules is sometimes wrong so obviously majority rules is completely useless and always wrong." Seriously, guy? You're also forgetting the other half of that "majority rules with minority rights." 51% of the population of a democratic nation can't just one day decide to vote to murder the other 49% because that violates the 49%'s rights. I didn't even read the rest of your bullshit after reading that. You can't start with a pile of vomit like that and expect the reader to take anything else seriously. That's why literally every democratic society that has ever existed and for that matter even most monarchic or totalitarian ones have had restrictions on what the people in power can do. It is exceedingly rare historically for any group at all to have absolute, complete, and total power over others. Even in cases of literal slavery there were often still things you weren't allowed to do to slaves. The reason property rights conflicts with human rights is that people these days are using the land to literally enslave other classes. Look at the poor in America. Land ownership is exceedingly rare. The poor often rent and literally can't afford to buy land, start businesses, or anything of the sort. Given how lovely our social safety net is and how awful America as at caring for its unfortunates they have no choice but to sell their time to survive. To the people who own all the land. And want to treat them like slaves. By paying them as little as possible no matter how much they're worth. But you're arguing that it's wrong to take money away from those that are exploiting the poorest among us for profit because  MEN WITH GUNS are taking away something somebody earned or made themselves.A loving billionaire CEO running a company that hires people for starvation wages and outsources as much work as possible to places where literal children are being paid $1 a day is not earning anything. He is engaging in slavery. Seriously, read about poo poo like the electronics industry or chocolate. Those industries often rely on child labor or literal goddamned slavery.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
I hate to go back to something I've already discussed, but I've had a question about this rattling around in my brain since last night: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. 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? Can anyone actually think of any society in history that has acknowledged the principle of self ownership? I mean clearly there aren't any that acknowledge it by name, but I mean just any that acknowledge the definition I've included above. Because while I had an easy time thinking of counter examples I can't actually think of any examples in his favor. Modern social democracies would probably be the closest, but even with those there is an understanding that Self-ownership isn't unassailable and is subject to a variety of social factors. For example, I can't think of a society on earth where general suicide is accepted. Sure there are some that allow assisted suicide (which they should.) but I actually can't think of a modern society where you won't be forcibly hospitalized if you attempt to take your own life and fail, which is something that runs totally counter to the idea of Self-Ownership because I should be allowed to destroy something I own. Then there are issues with drugs as we've discussed above (I personally think heroin use should be decriminalized but still limited to specific conditions for safety reasons, for example). There are also more nebulous things such as noise violations. Am I 'harming' someone by playing stupidly loud music at one in the morning? Sort of points out how harm is a very subjective term that could included or exclude a variety of things. So yeah... can anyone think of a society that has acknowledged the principle of self ownership? I'm drawing a blank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Self-ownership as the basis of all rights seems like a conflation error. What I mean by that is, you can say something like "I should have control over my body and how it moves and what it does and no one should interfere in that so long as I refrain from the same," which I'll call for the sake of brevity "self-direction," and with some qualification a lot of people would say that's a pretty OK basis for a lot of rights. But what then happens, implicitly or subconsciously, is the libertarian goes, "...just like property rights!" Because that is similar to property rights: if I own something as property I can generally do whatever I want with it and no one else can prevent me (with, again, similar caveats to the right of self-direction). So from there the libertarian doesn't so much conclude as simultaneously insinuate and assume that because both ownership of property and personal self-direction are based on the freedom to do with X what I wish, my right to self-direction of my body derives from standing in relation to myself as a proprietor. In jrod's mind, maybe self-ownership is something that has some degree of recognition because self-direction does, and he does not distinguish between different justifications for control over ourselves and our stuff. It's all the same. Edit: Thinking this over, there doesn't seem to be much basis for preferring "my right to own things derives from my right to own me" over "self-direction implies the right to own things I obtain by my self-direction." The major difference is that in the second case, your right to own things would be constrained by the degree to which your ownership or means of attaining ownership has the effect of stifling others' self-direction. Or in other words, property rights would not be absolute, but contingent. Hm. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Caros posted:So yeah... can anyone think of a society that has acknowledged the principle of self ownership? I'm drawing a blank. The idea of self-ownership actually comes from ancient Roman jurisprudence! Of course, it was absolutely a transferable property right, because it existed solely to justify the owning of slaves. In fact, it was invented specifically to justify treating your slaves any way you wanted to, because they're just property! Coincidentally, the Roman system of slavery was one of the most brutal institutions in world history until trans-Atlantic chattel slavery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:This pretty simply deals with the issue of why using something as simple as 'maximize happiness' can be problematic. I never understood this critique. Maybe there's an actual meaningful argument that it's a hugely hyperbolic version of, but even in the most mathematical system of utilitarianism I don't see how a concept of diminishing returns, or setting a mandatory minimum bound below which no individual should be driven, or targeting median rather than mean happiness, don't all render the utility monster utterly pointless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I never understood this critique. Maybe there's an actual meaningful argument that it's a hugely hyperbolic version of, but even in the most mathematical system of utilitarianism I don't see how a concept of diminishing returns, or setting a mandatory minimum bound below which no individual should be driven, or targeting median rather than mean happiness, don't all render the utility monster utterly pointless. Oh I don't think that is accurate, I just think it serves as a wonderful illustration as to why basing all of human existence off of a single concept is a bad idea, regardless of if that concept is self ownership or maximize happiness. People are complicated and can't be explained so easily was my point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Caros posted:Oh I don't think that is accurate, I just think it serves as a wonderful illustration as to why basing all of human existence off of a single concept is a bad idea, regardless of if that concept is self ownership or maximize happiness. Yeah, and I guess my response is driving the same point—pretending anything about people is simple is rarely going to end well. Excellent. I am genuinely curious about utility monsters though so please, people in this thread, inform me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Yeah, and I guess my response is driving the same point—pretending anything about people is simple is rarely going to end well. Excellent. Well yeah, utility monsters don't actually exist. The post was tongue in cheek.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well yeah, utility monsters don't actually exist. The post was tongue in cheek. Jrod is what happens when you tell the utility monster to maximize "Freedom". A couple hundred people getting 50 billion freedom points is better than 7 billion people getting the bare minimum amount of freedom points to survive 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Yeah, and I guess my response is driving the same point—pretending anything about people is simple is rarely going to end well. Excellent. It's striving for a (maybe somewhat loose) reductio ad absurdem. The thought is basically this. Utiltiarianism seeks the greatest good (however defined) of the greatest number (however defined). Let us call that amount of good X. There exists a utility monster. Whatever resources you devote to producing X, you could instead devote to the utility monster to produce X+1. By utility's own standards, then, everything must be devoted to the monster. The point being that utilitarian morality itself can give results that almost anyone would find immoral, yet according to utility it is moral. A couple of responses off the top of my head include "I agree completely. As soon as you find a utility monster, let me know," "There can exist also a duty monster, so what else do you have?" Buried alive fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:I hate to go back to something I've already discussed, but I've had a question about this rattling around in my brain since last night: Another place where social democracies tell Self-ownership to get hosed is in vaccines. So, just in case you needed another example of libertarians wanting to drag us back to feudal times... there you go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Has Jrode compensated his mother for occupying her self for ten months, to say nothing of additional labor and similar costs entailed in the begetting of a child? Have they negotiated the contract? Clearly significant monies are owed as compensation, though the details, perhaps, may vary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Libertarians like Malcolm X and black nationalism because they see it as a good way to get all the black people out of their neighborhood and into another country. White separatists like to cite Malcolm X as he was pre-hajj/before leaving the Nation of Islam and converting to mainstream islam, because Malcolm X back then was willing to meet with the KKK to discuss their common goal of separatism. The KKK praised the NOI as a 'bunch of n*s that knew their place" while the NOI said "at least the KKK is honest in their hatred, unlike other two-faced whites." They don't like Malcolm X after he disavowed all the crazy NOI dogma and started taking a more left-leaning, civil rights movement oriented approach to black liberation - one that was willing to appeal to the UN for African American rights. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Not to exploit what is undoubtedly a difficult situation, but how the gently caress do conjoined twins fit into Self-Ownership? I mean I know its pretty much the ultimate niche case, but my wife brought it up to me earlier and my brain is now totally fried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Caros posted:Not to exploit what is undoubtedly a difficult situation, but how the gently caress do conjoined twins fit into Self-Ownership? I mean I know its pretty much the ultimate niche case, but my wife brought it up to me earlier and my brain is now totally fried. Which twin could survive if the other was removed surgically? Survival of the fittest shows that whomever would be able to live apart would be the 'self owner' with the other one just along for the ride.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:It's striving for a (maybe somewhat loose) reductio ad absurdem. The thought is basically this. Utilitarianism itself even acknowledges that it's more of a philosophical set of guidelines that one can use to understand morality rather than a set of hard and fast rules. Morality in general has a lot of grey areas, edge cases, and hard choices. If literally murdering somebody would make the rest of the world happier is it acceptable to do it? Perhaps it's a bit cliche but if you knew WW2 was happening and assassinating Hitler before he did Hitlery things would it be OK? In retrospect yeah murdering Hitler before he came to power would probably have been a good thing but how would you justify that when he was a common soldier? We're talking pre-political career Hitler. Which is why utilitarianism doesn't say it's automatically right to harvest the organs of a healthy, living person if it would save the lives of 15 other people. While 15 living, healthy people would have greater utility than 1 living person it's hard to morally justify the action. Granted you can also argue counter to that that everybody knowing that they won't be harvested for organs while healthy and alive has the greater utility. I'm pretty happy knowing that my organs won't be harvested until after I'm dead and no longer using them. Really, at that point I won't care. gently caress, eat them or turn them into soccer balls or something, I don't give a poo poo, I'll be dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Which twin could survive if the other was removed surgically? Survival of the fittest shows that whomever would be able to live apart would be the 'self owner' with the other one just along for the ride. You homestead the shared heart and kill the other one if he commits aggression by continuing to use blood from it. The aggrieved family of the dead twin is of course perfectly within their rights to sue for compensation and the organs after-the-fact although they shouldn't expect their case to get anywhere against the current property owner if they can't provide a property deed or some other ironclad proof-of-ownership on behalf of the deceased.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
I'm not violating the principle of non aggression with this post, that being said: Jrod if your next post doesn't quote this post and respond with "I'm a big ole stinky butthole and I'm dumb and I copypaste racist screeds to fulfill my pathetic fantasies of being an intellectual" then you will have entered into a contract with me, the terms of which are that I own all of your possessions, in exchange for my posting a positive response to one of your posts. This is a valid contract which you are free to enter into, or to refuse to enter into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Utilitarianism itself even acknowledges that it's more of a philosophical set of guidelines that one can use to understand morality rather than a set of hard and fast rules. Morality in general has a lot of grey areas, edge cases, and hard choices. If literally murdering somebody would make the rest of the world happier is it acceptable to do it? Perhaps it's a bit cliche but if you knew WW2 was happening and assassinating Hitler before he did Hitlery things would it be OK? In retrospect yeah murdering Hitler before he came to power would probably have been a good thing but how would you justify that when he was a common soldier? We're talking pre-political career Hitler. If nothing else the results would be psychologically interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Has Jrode compensated his mother for occupying her self for ten months, to say nothing of additional labor and similar costs entailed in the begetting of a child? Have they negotiated the contract? Clearly significant monies are owed as compensation, though the details, perhaps, may vary. Shouldn't his mother owe him for being given the privilege of bearing and raising a paragon of libertarian thought?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. I like this one because it's so easily and immediately disproven with like two seconds of googling:    Of course, it goes without saying that none of these issues would exist if we eliminated food stamps and the minimum wage and left it to the market to sort out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
Something something, Romney's confiscatory 11% tax rate is why he doesn't have enough money to give to the poor after buying his 20th classic car and the elevator for it, if only we eliminated taxes the rich would have the money they need to solve poverty lickety-split
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
Caros posted:Not to exploit what is undoubtedly a difficult situation, but how the gently caress do conjoined twins fit into Self-Ownership? I mean I know its pretty much the ultimate niche case, but my wife brought it up to me earlier and my brain is now totally fried. This example confuses the poo poo out of me every time it comes up. There's those twins who come up on TLC every once in a while who basically have two heads but share a reproductive system. Every time, I get locked into a spiralling brainfuck trying to figure out how in the hell they could date or marry. They're legally distinct individuals, so presumably one can marry while the other doesn't. But you can't legally marry the same person. If they don't happen to be in love with the same guy/ comfortable having a 3-way any time they want to have intercourse, does that mean it's ethically impossible for them to ever have sex because what's experienced as sex by one is experienced as rape by the other? Everything we instinctively understand about consent, control of your body, etc just completely falls apart when you come to the case of two distinct brains wired to the same body parts. As far as how that should affect general human philosphy w/r/t ethics, I think it's safe to say that it's such an extreme edge case that we can safely treat the pair of twins as an autonomous body for the purposes of how we interact with them as a society and allow them to decide between themselves how the details of that work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I like this one because it's so easily and immediately disproven with like two seconds of googling: That's your problem, using a term like "food insecure" instead of "motivated to excel." For example the other day I had to attend a webinar where the presenter had done a study of young males who engaged in prostitution in New York City. A huge number of them cited hunger as a motivation. See? The drive to excellence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
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. leftists do support foreign aid you idiot
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:leftists do support foreign aid you idiot Jrod is not capable of distinguishing between philosophies that aren't ancapism. They all get lumped into a big bucket labeled "statism." So if he sees someone on cspan decry foreign aid because "we need to help people here first," then that must be what statists believe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:leftists do support foreign aid you idiot What he means is "You, personally, aren't giving all your excess wealth to the poor, so how can you ask other people to make a sacrifice you won't make yourself?  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:What he means is "You, personally, aren't giving all your excess wealth to the poor, so how can you ask other people to make a sacrifice you won't make yourself? Which is presupposing a lot for all he knows I live a life of quiet asceticism wherein I give all my worldly wealth to the world's poorest orphans, the luxury of posting on SA being my only vice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I mean I don't, but he had no way of knowing that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I mean I don't, but he had no way of knowing that. Didn't you know that only Maoist Third Worlders are allowed to post in D&D? All others are purged, capitalist pigdog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Without widespread agreement with personal property rights, those with the guns will always subjugate those who don't abuse violence, and will do so without opposition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Which is presupposing a lot for all he knows I live a life of quiet asceticism wherein I give all my worldly wealth to the world's poorest orphans, the luxury of posting on SA being my only vice. Even that is trying to help people on the low. You're like a jesuit in the french resistance
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
If socialism, then why don't socialist countries give all their money to poor capitalist countries? Check mate statards  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Didn't you know that only Maoist Third Worlders are allowed to post in D&D? All others are purged, capitalist pigdog. See there's all that assuming things about my character again. For all you know, I'm part of an international communist conspiracy to bring capitalism crashing down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
I mean I'm not, but it really isn't good to assume mean things about strangers!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I mean I'm not, but it really isn't good to assume mean things about strangers! paragon1 posted:See there's all that assuming things about my character again. For all you know, I'm part of an international communist conspiracy to bring capitalism crashing down. The moon is high and the cat has fleas 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Slaan posted:The moon is high and the cat has fleas The angel's sons have been hungry recently. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:The angel's sons have been hungry recently. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
theshim posted:The significant owl hoots in the night The pig is in the poke 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:The pig is in the poke I am very confused.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 07:21
|
|