|
OwlFancier posted:Also they define what productive means. Most of the time it seems to be "be white."
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Most of the time it seems to be "be white." You forgot "parents have lots of money."
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Most of the time it seems to be "be white." We also get to define who counts as white. Anglo-saxons only, filthy papists go home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
I cannot abide a Frenchman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Hello, jrodefeld. Hello, thread. I don't usually poke into D&D threads much, except for cool threads like the Politically Loaded Maps thread, which is really awesome. I consider myself conservative, as I believe that a government is a "necessary evil" because "men are not angels"; and therefor a government should not be any bigger than is necessary to perform it's agreed upon duties as set by the people who installed it and who are represented by it. Obviously, this means that government can, will, and should fluctuate in size according to the will of the people as to the duties of the government or "state" as the libertarians like to refer to it (I've always considered the state and government to refer to two separate entities, sorry if I'm loving up definitions). Perhaps I'm more politically agnostic these days, or maybe "centrist" is the right word, because I support expanded welfare, but believe it needs to be done so carefully to prevent abuse. I find myself more and more disgusted with the party that my grandparents influenced me to vote for, but yet I can't agree with the other guys because I find them equally repugnant. I want a secure border, but less restrictive immigration policies. I'm very supportive of our military, and think that we should have the best military in the world, but at the same time I don't think we should be propping up dictators and going into random countries to "deliver moar freedoms." Lately, thanks to many of my friends and random internet polls, I thought I, too, was actually Libertarian. But I'm not, and thank you jrodefeld for helping clear that up. Now it's time for me to vomit a huge page of words that will probably get torn apart by the sharks in this thread. I would go on a rant about how disgusting it is that you think one could divorce their consciousness (or soul) from their body so that they could claim one as property. It is that sort of thinking that leads to justification for slavery. And Rome, which allowed for "voluntary enslavement" had a saying "Better to starve a Roman than to live a slave." But I think everyone else has done an awesome job about it. No, this is my point: In a Society with No Government, Who Writes the Laws? Who Enforces the Laws? Who Prevents Abuse of the Laws? Reusing a quote, as one of the founding fathers said, regarding the Constitution and the limits it imposed on government, he said, more or less; if men were angels, we wouldn't need laws. The whole of your Libertarian ideology (and ironically full scale anarcho-Communism) hinges on the idea that Man at his core, is inherently good; and if faced with a fellow man in trouble, will come to his aide. I disagree, possibly because of my Christian upbringing, which teaches the opposite, that is Man is inherently sinful; and if left to his own devices, will do that which is good in his own eye, or to put it a less confusing way, Man with no other influence, will act selfishly if allowed, and will do evil if would benefit him. So, we establish that there is a need for laws. Now, laws are completely arbitrary fictions, to borrow a word I keep seeing. Laws are based on social norms and morality, to prevent what we see as harm and abuse from others - basically, laws stop good men from being evil. And "good" and "evil" are defined, more or less, arbitrarily by our society's collective morality. So, how are laws enacted in a stateless society? Is it just "agreed" that we obey the laws? Or do these private DROs or whatever you call these contract police forces make their own laws? Will different DROs have different laws? Will Pinkerton let me drive on the left side of the road, but Dicks Co. not? Will Dicks Co. allow true Freedom of Speech, but Pinkerton enforce blasphemy laws? If we are living in a truly free society, why am I compelled BY MEN WITH GUNS to enter into a contract with DROs? Let me paint a hypothetical situation, one which first popped into my mind as I was reading. I'm a big fan of Popehat (and you should be, too) and follow free speech issues as closely as I can, living half way around the world from my country. Let's say I've moved into a new sub-division. All the houses are protected by Pinkerton, and the privately owned street is also patrolled by Pinkerton. This street is the only access for my home, unless I feel like driving through my neighbor's back yard onto another street protected by Pinkerton. Let's say I get into an argument with the owner of the street. I hurt his feels. He says "gently caress you, you're not driving on my street." If I go to work, will I be trespassing? Will Pinkerton bust my rear end for using the only access to or from my house to get to work and provide for my family? Does my freedom of movement trump the street owner's property rights, or do his property rights trump any right I might claim to be allowed to use his street to get to work/go to a store and buy food/etc? Is it possible to be my own DRO, or do I have to contract with a "recognized DRO"? Recognized by whom, other DROs? Let's say I don't like Pinkerton's services. In fact, I really think they're assholes and I want to tell everyone about it in the most conspicuous way possible - by protesting them. I cancel my contract with Pinkerton and hire Dicks Co. Can I picket in front of their building? What prevents them from beating me up under the pretense of trespassing? Can I picket on the street in front of their building? What prevents them from leaning on the owner to deny my access, then beating me up under pretense of trespassing? Can I picket at a park? Well, parks are privately owned, so what's to stop the owner from calling his DRO (Pinkerton or otherwise) and having me beat up and then removed? Can I picket at my own house? What's to prevent Pinkerton from abusing me at my own property and purposely making it difficult for my own DRO to respond to my cries for help? What's to prevent PInkerton from harassing me every time I drive on a street the protect, patronize a business they protect, or just harassing me at my home which is now a Dicks Co island in the middle of the Pinkerton sea? What if my picketing is not considered protected speech under Pinkerton's laws and they try to sue me or Dicks Co for hurting their feels? Would there be "Free Speech Zones" which are public areas where I can speak my mind without reprisal? What's to prevent Pinkerton from abusing me the moment I leave that Zone? Lastly, I think the idea that we can target criminals because they'd cancel their DRO contract for fear of punishment is such ignorant bullshit, on the level of "a gunman won't come here because it's a gun free zone." A good criminal will keep his DRO contract, because he knows he won't get caught, and because he would look less suspicious. A poor person who can't afford a "voluntarily mandated DRO" on the other hand, becomes a social pariah and non-person under this scheme. Sorry I'm getting away from your point about Property Rights, it's just this is a huge sticking point to me, and actually does circle back to your argument of property rights. If property rights are the end-all-be-all, how to we reconcile them with freedom of speech? Freedom of movement? Freedom of association? And yes, it's still disgusting that you feel that we should treat our bodies as property, maybe I'll argue my point on that later. Also, no, it's not a coincidence that I'm using Pinkerton as an example here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:therefor a government should not be any bigger than is necessary to perform it's agreed upon duties as set by the people who installed it and who are represented by it. Obviously, this means that government can, will, and should fluctuate in size according to the will of the people as to the duties of the government It's always so odd to me when someone touts this as a cornerstone of their political beliefs. I view it as right up there with statements such as "murder should be illegal". Outside of nepotism and other forms of corruption (which are illegal, but can be difficult to prove), could you point out one department of the US government whose purpose isn't to perform duties agreed upon by the people or their duly-elected representatives? Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:It's always so odd to me when someone touts this as a cornerstone of their political beliefs. I view it as right up there with statements such as "murder should be illegal". Outside of nepotism and other forms of corruption (which are illegal, but can be difficult to prove), could you point out one department of the US government whose purpose isn't to perform duties agreed upon by the people or their duly-elected representatives? It's the idea that a government that's too big will be rife with corruption, abuse, and will abuse it's citizens which it claims to protect and represent. Like a police force that's 90+% white cops in black cities. Outside of that, it's more the idea of administrative bloat. There's more than one office chair being warmed by the backside of someone who was put there either as a political favor, or a political favor being repaid, and this is wrong because that person will abuse their power. To jrodefeld, it's more the idea that I believe a society requires a government in order to function. He thinks it doesn't, but if he supports the idea of DROs and someone to enforce the law, then he does agree that government is required to exist in some capacity, but for some reason can't wrap his mind around the concept. Do need to be careful though, because it's sometimes used by racists as a dog-whistle for cutting welfare from "those people."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also they define what productive means. Jrod, explain right now what the objective sovereign definition of "productive" means with regards to land without lapsing into appeals of democracy and enslaved rejoinder. I don't want to hear poo poo about what "reasonable" people might define it as because I have revoked all contracts past present and future and I have in my possession an Article Binded by the One True Creditor heretofore referred to as Yahweh Naked in the Flesh stating I have been made Naked and am a Free Inhabitant, having abolished all implied or explicit Birth Bonds of this World. Having achieved full consciousness through supreme dominion over all 10 senses, I rebuke all adhesion contracts and summarily reject contractual congress with your linguistic presuppositions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Now it's time for me to vomit a huge page of words that will probably get torn apart by the sharks in this thread. Don't worry, I think you're going to get along fine here. The reason we go after JRod so mercilessly is because he's been posting disingenuously, regurgitating the same talking points and ignoring substantive rebuttals, for literal years. Add in his near-exclusive idolization of racists and misogynists and his refusal to admit that, and you have a recipe for getting on people's nerves. As for your own beliefs and where they put you: thinking the government should only be as large as necessary for its duties, that welfare should exist but abuse should be avoided, and opposing us propping up dictators? Those put you in the category of "not conservative or libertarian." Welcome to the not-right, where the mythical monolith of socialist/liberal/progressive turns out to be a million little ideological camps who all distrust each other at best. Look around and pick any camp you want! But choose wisely 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
I'm all for an entirely different perspective on why jrod is wrong about everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Now it's time for me to vomit a huge page of words that will probably get torn apart by the sharks in this thread. Nah, I mean, speaking for myself, I disagree with some of this but it's not dumb bullshit and I like seeing another perspective on why libertarianism is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It's the idea that a government that's too big will be rife with corruption, abuse, and will abuse it's citizens which it claims to protect and represent. Like a police force that's 90+% white cops in black cities. Outside of that, it's more the idea of administrative bloat. There's more than one office chair being warmed by the backside of someone who was put there either as a political favor, or a political favor being repaid, and this is wrong because that person will abuse their power. Well, the thing is, nobody seriously disagrees with this. Nobody says, "I'm in favor of a bloated government that's riddled with corruption." What people disagree about is how much a government has to do and what level of inefficiency is tolerable in pursuit of its goals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:The Libertarian go-to answer to this is that European settlers ~mixed their labor with the land~ which makes their right to it more special because factories got built on it or some poo poo. It is an effectively meaningless distinction that only serves to benefit those currently sitting on the land. So what I'm getting from this thread so far is that the answer to the question of "Why should we care about property rights?" is actually "For the most part we shouldn't, at least not in the way that libertarians want us to."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:I'm all for an entirely different perspective on why jrod is wrong about everything. It's almost midnight where I live. I can post my argument against "self-ownership" in the sense of treating one's body as property, but I warn you, it's highly philosophical and theological, too. Which I understand could easily get trampled under the bus of "not my beliefs, they don't apply here." But I'll give a try when I'm awake, it gets into many of the justifications for the abolitionist movement, and into many of the reasons I've become disillusioned with the Republican party and Conservatism these days. But, it's the big reason why I'm disgusted with the idea of "my body is my property" in the way that jrode is presenting it. I'm a big history nerd, so there will probably be many call backs to history, possibly inaccurate, but I'm willing to be corrected when I'm wrong. I'll try to get to work on it when I get up in the morning, barring any random Taiwanese friends who want to go to McDonald's for pancakes. In the very least, I'd like to hear your guy's reaction to it, as honestly it's not really an opinion I've articulated before, but I've never felt the need to. Growing up in a family feeling a like-minded connection to my grandparents (especially my grandfather who is probably the second most influential on my politics), I always sincerely felt that the beliefs I held were held by all "true conservatives" and it was never an argument I had to make. The past few years, many people have proven otherwise. Greatest of all my uncle who is such an ignorant rear end in a top hat that he refuses to recognize my dad, my sister, and my father's entire side of the family as part of my family. I could rant all day about that. Also, I want to thank theshim for posting that article about reparations. HOLY gently caress! I mean, I've never been ignorant to the abuses suffered by the black community in the US, but I've always had a bit of a lackadaisical attitude about the subject of reparations, owing to my family having immigrated to the US well after slavery ended, and the bullshit they had to deal with when they got here (seriously, my Polish great-grandfather had to take his turn as a highwayman and bootlegger to get by because nobody wanted to hire a Pollock). But poo poo, I mean, we rebuilt Japan, we rebuilt Germany, we built up Korea for better or for worse; we at least had a pretense of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan; why the gently caress can't we rebuild the black community? Why can't we do the same for the Native Americans? Blacks were systematically put into ghettos and the result is a youth that's hooked on violence and drugs. The Native American youth are hooked on apathy and drugs. It's no small wonder why every anti-drug "say no to meth" PSA I saw in NoDak had Native American kids and not white kids! Even if we don't give any money directly to a single person, is it not on our collective conscious to right our wrongs and do something to fix this poo poo? How it makes me weep that I alone lack the power and wealth to help those born into this system. It reminds me of a recent story in Cleveland, a young boy, of about 7 or 9 years old, was arrested and will be sent to juvie because he was walking around the street with a gun in his hand. Illegal possession. As though a boy that young could even fathom what that means, let alone pronounce it. But the Cleveland police department, the judge and the prosecutor, have each created a new career criminal. They have guaranteed the jobs for themselves and their successors. Sorry to bunny trail, but getting late, and I'm pretty tired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It's almost midnight where I live. I can post my argument against "self-ownership" in the sense of treating one's body as property, but I warn you, it's highly philosophical and theological, too. Which I understand could easily get trampled under the bus of "not my beliefs, they don't apply here." But I'll give a try when I'm awake, it gets into many of the justifications for the abolitionist movement, and into many of the reasons I've become disillusioned with the Republican party and Conservatism these days. But, it's the big reason why I'm disgusted with the idea of "my body is my property" in the way that jrode is presenting it. I'm a big history nerd, so there will probably be many call backs to history, possibly inaccurate, but I'm willing to be corrected when I'm wrong. I'll try to get to work on it when I get up in the morning, barring any random Taiwanese friends who want to go to McDonald's for pancakes. Sounds like an interesting read. More perspectives are always welcome, especially since it will help show Jrodimus that we aren't a monolithic "Left-Progressive" echo chamber. Your religion-based reasons for rejecting libertarianism are going to be different from my secular humanist Rawlsian ones, which will be different from those of the various Marxists who post around here. As for the reparations discussion, it's a very important and depressing topic to cover, but probably outside the scope of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It's the idea that a government that's too big will be rife with corruption, abuse, and will abuse it's citizens which it claims to protect and represent. Like a police force that's 90+% white cops in black cities. Outside of that, it's more the idea of administrative bloat. There's more than one office chair being warmed by the backside of someone who was put there either as a political favor, or a political favor being repaid, and this is wrong because that person will abuse their power. To jrodefeld, it's more the idea that I believe a society requires a government in order to function. He thinks it doesn't, but if he supports the idea of DROs and someone to enforce the law, then he does agree that government is required to exist in some capacity, but for some reason can't wrap his mind around the concept. Do need to be careful though, because it's sometimes used by racists as a dog-whistle for cutting welfare from "those people." I can tell you as someone in government that most of our administrative bloat, and I mean most in the sense of "the majority cause of", is peoples inherent mistrust of government acting for their benefit. If for example I want to invest in a radio system to have for emergency communications, I have to document that I have requested 3 seperate bids for delivering said system if the cost of that system would exceed $X. It doesnt matter that said system may only have one vendor in the entire economic region delivering the product on spec, the assumption is always that there is too many staff working for the government, who must not be working very hard and the government is obviously wasting money somewhere even though the entire budget is visible to the public and theres no service anyone can point to as being done inefficiently. Not trying to pick on you or anything just taking the rare opportunity to make a amicable point about the inherent flaws in the "government is too big" philosophy there is very much assuredly corruption and flaws in government but because of the onerous record keeping the citizens demand from public sector workers, that the private sector never has to answer to, the only real corruption you ever see in government comes from those elected and/or appointed. "Staff" get fired, the system works. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It's the idea that a government that's too big will be rife with corruption, abuse, and will abuse it's citizens which it claims to protect and represent. I find size as very little to do with how corrupt an organization is actually. You get small towns with corrupt councils and sheriffs, big cities with deeply embedded corruption at all levels, and so on. Hell it's not even unique to governments. Charities and businesses both big and small will have people behaving unethically and irresponsibly. Corruption has a lot more to do with separation of powers and duties, internal controls, the general culture, and being able to be held accountable by independent outside groups. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Jesus Christ. I actually figured that most of you would say "well, of course world government would be bad" and make up some excuse as to why your ideology doesn't logically lead to that place. But instead you embrace it as a good and desirable thing. It's not and shouldn't be the government's responsibility to make people materially equal in all ways you nincompoop, it's to make sure that people at least have their basic needs met and to fund projects that are in the common best interest. Both of these goals can be accomplished on a worldwide scale without a significant drop in prosperity for Western nations. A government should exist to make up for the more serious shortcomings of a laissez-faire free market, basically, and there are many such shortcomings. But way to go constructing a conclusion that wasn't supported by anything that I wrote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Well, the thing is, nobody seriously disagrees with this. Nobody says, "I'm in favor of a bloated government that's riddled with corruption." speak for yourself, comrade
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I can tell you as someone in government that most of our administrative bloat, and I mean most in the sense of "the majority cause of", is peoples inherent mistrust of government acting for their benefit. If for example I want to invest in a radio system to have for emergency communications, I have to document that I have requested 3 seperate bids for delivering said system if the cost of that system would exceed $X. It doesnt matter that said system may only have one vendor in the entire economic region delivering the product on spec, the assumption is always that there is too many staff working for the government, who must not be working very hard and the government is obviously wasting money somewhere even though the entire budget is visible to the public and theres no service anyone can point to as being done inefficiently. I always loved how agencies would be punished for having emergency funds because they'd budget a reasonable amount for hardware failures but got lucky they have to spend the money anyway otherwise the following year we wouldn't get the money for needed repairs. Seriously, I think you could cut about 2% of administrative costs if they'd just allow agencies to handle their own emergency funds in lock box style interest bearing accounts with a 10-20% annual budget balance cap for each agency. The way we do federal department budgeting is insane, and the only reason we do it that way is because people constantly want to cut to the bone. And somehow it's still better than what some companies try to pull to make their end of quarter balance sheets hit market expectations. Anubis fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:It's the idea that a government that's too big will be rife with corruption, abuse, and will abuse it's citizens which it claims to protect and represent. This is true of any organization, not just governments. Arguably, it's even more true for non-government organizations. So if you're in favor of breaking up large governments, are you also in favor of breaking up large corporations? My opinion is that groups can't be corrupt. People can be corrupt, and large groups are more likely to contain corrupt people in positions where they can do harm, but there are also a number of mitigating steps that can be implemented to reduce the effect that corrupt people have on the health of an organization. Ergo it's not the size of an organization that actually matters
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Down with nation states! A one world government now!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
i think everyone should rule over their own tiny country and those countries can go to war and we all have giant robots for going to war with, hail satan
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Thanks for joining us YFpilot, it's good to have an outsider (who is not an an authoritarian shithead) voice their opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is true of any organization, not just governments. Arguably, it's even more true for non-government organizations. So if you're in favor of breaking up large governments, are you also in favor of breaking up large corporations? If you say "arguably", you'd better have data to support your bias. Please provide your data. This "idea" that groups can't be corrupt is literally going against all of sociology as well as strutural-social economics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If you say "arguably", you'd better have data to support your bias. Please provide your data. No, arguments do not necessarily require empirical evidence. An argument can rely on logic alone. If one wants to prove their argument had existential validity they must provide empirical evidence but the statement you're criticising is discussing the concept of government and non-government organisations. If you want proof of corruption in non-governmental organisations and/or governments there are ways of finding out that don't necessarily require you to accuse someone of bias, especially if you yourself cannot provide justification of your accusation of bias. After all, if they are guilty of throwing unsubstantiated claims then you should at least not do the same thing in calling them out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If you say "arguably", you'd better have data to support your bias. Please provide your data. No, the idea that groups can't be corrupt isn't going against 'all of sociology'. Sociology is a broad field with a lot of perspectives, including ones that see groups as fictions and hold that interpersonal transactions are the unit of society. Those sociologists might talk about corrupt practices or corruption being learned by individuals in the context of the institution, but wouldn't give the institution itself that agency. Probably the best writer on corruption in Sociology, Syed Hussein Alatas, doesn't really talk about corrupt institutions, but institutions infected by, pervaded by, corruption. He talks about corrupt societies and states, but by that he means the level of corruption in them. What QuarkJets said makes sense: The size of an organization isn't related to the amount of corruption in it. A large government isn't likely to be more corrupt than a small government; there is no rhyme or reason to that. The opposite would naively appear to be true; a small sheriff's office is more likely to be corrupt than the FBI--in the definitions given by Alatas, that being direct bribery of officials, appointments and hiring done by family and connections rather than any sort of merit, and extortion, threatening with force or other negative outcomes to get something out of people. However, it's probably not the size itself but the interconnectedness, the number of watchmen watching the watchmen, that lowers the chance of corruption. If you're interested, here's his main text: http://www.ibtbooks.com/product.php?cat=P&pid=9789839541977 Another great book that analyzes corruptoin from the point of view of transactions rather than institutions, is this one: s http://www.amazon.com/Corrupt-Excha...m+of+Corruption
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Clearly some institutional structures are more prone to corruption than others. This is one of the most important lessons of history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Clearly some institutional structures are more prone to corruption than others. This is one of the most important lessons of history. It seems more a completely obvious truism to me. Systems with less oversight are more prone to corruption.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It seems more a completely obvious truism to me. Systems with less oversight are more prone to corruption. Which is pretty similar to "groups can be corrupt".
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
The real point is just that libertarians are dumb when they act like corruption (and coercion and any number of other things) are unique properties of the evil State, and not something that could ever sully the pure glory of the true Free Market. (Though Jrode seems to like to play No True Scotsman by adding "crony capitalists" into the mix, as though we could somehow separate them from the True Capitalists.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Which is pretty similar to "groups can be corrupt". Well, no, because that suggests that some organizational structures are inherently corrupt. Irrespective of their component members. Which is not true, it's entirely possible for small organizations without oversight to work well, if not better, for their lack of oversight. The thing to take away is that nothing is inherently corrupt and equally, nothing is entirely proof against corruption. The only thing that works is vigilance and having the means to act against corruption when it is found.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Which is pretty similar to "groups can be corrupt". You missed the point. Guilty Spork posted:The real point is just that libertarians are dumb when they act like corruption (and coercion and any number of other things) are unique properties of the evil State, and not something that could ever sully the pure glory of the true Free Market. (Though Jrode seems to like to play No True Scotsman by adding "crony capitalists" into the mix, as though we could somehow separate them from the True Capitalists.) Corruption would be rather obviously more frequent under the libertarian model. All DROs are private enterprises, and there will be no reason to trust their oversight of each other. If you subscribe to a DSO, you have zero insight into whether they're corrupt unless you imagine some super-DRO that does the first DROs books and stuff, but then that just moves the "Well why trust them"question to that DRO. Government works as an arbiter of private industry because they have different interests and incentives. Where it fall down the most in our world is when political interests resemble private and market interests--like politicians needing to raise money in order to get re-elected. What works best and least corrupt is our bureaucracy, the career civil servants who are farthest divorced from market interests and have overlapping oversight of each other. In libertarianland, even if you hired an outside auditor to investigate the DRO, the DRO can pay them more than you can. So do you hire a DRO-watching DRO? Size doesn't have anything to do with corruption.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, no, because that suggests that some organizational structures are inherently corrupt. Irrespective of their component members. Which is not true, it's entirely possible for small organizations without oversight to work well, if not better, for their lack of oversight. Absolute power? Monarchy? While it seems that you're leaving yourself open to recognize that there are some good monarchs (which is true) it's also the case that we recognize absolute power to be inherently corrupting in the sense that eventually it will lead to corruption.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Absolute power? Monarchy? Absolute power--as in Louis XIV--is not more corruptive, no. Absolute monarchs can't be corrupt. They are the nation. Whatever they want or decide is literally the law. I think you're mixing this up with moral corruption. It's not corrupt for the absolute king to suddenly revoke trading rights that someone paid for--it's his legal right. Again, what you're saying is basically a truism: If a system is set up with oversight and mechanisms of enforcement, then it won't be corrupt. Modern democracy, with the idea of checks and balances, has this built in. But there's nothing about representative democracy, absent those separation of powers, that is more anti-corruptive than a monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Okay, I promised to do this, so here it is, my view against "self ownership" and for "self determination". I've probably written, deleted, rewritten, and deleted again about 5 times now. I'm not good at wall-of-text effort posts. But I'll try. I also apologize for my cis-gendered privilege and using the word "men" when I actually mean "people, all of Humanity." To start, most people agree that there is something which puts us above animals. Consciousness, rational thought, or perhaps a "soul". For brevity I will skip the philosophical arguments and use the word 'soul' to describe this concept. Now, we cannot separate our soul from our body, except through death. And where it goes after that is still hotly debated, if it goes anywhere at all. So, if I sell my body to someone, I cannot leave my body. I must go where my body goes, I am chained to it by chains which are neither physical nor possible to cut. Whatever happens to my body happens to me, my soul, my consciousness. I can no more separate myself from my body than I can separate the stars from the sky. Property can be vacated, abandoned, even shared. I cannot vacate my body, I cannot abandon my body, I cannot share my body with another soul. Property can be separated from it's owner, I cannot be separated from my body. And this is where I feel the crux of "personal ownership" falls apart - you try to separate "you" from "yourself", a physical impossibility. The simplest Biblical argument against 'humans as property' is this: We are all bond-servants in Christ. For he paid a debt too great for us to ever repay, and therefor we must serve each other as we would serve him, for all men are servants of God. So, even if we were to accept the argument that our bodies are property, to many of the world's religions, we don't own our bodies, God does. Therefor, trying to exact ownership over another person's body is theft from God. But this isn't even an argument made by religions, because it's such a stupid argument to even think that our bodies are property. No, rather the argument made in the New Testament is that we should treat everyone as equal, because we are equal according to God. "Servants be obedient to your master" but Paul also says that masters should serve their servants as bond-servants of Christ. Slave owners should be slaves to their slaves because they are all slaves to God! What the hell!?! Paul tells a slave owner to treat his (the owner's) slave as though that slave were his brother. And should the owner find any fault against the slave, that the owner should put that against Paul and not the slave! Yes, Christ and the New Testament never outright say that slavery is bad. Rome was a complicated place in a complicated time. But the Abolitionists read and read and came to the conclusion that if we are to act the way we are told to, slavery must necessarily end. Not to mention the golden rule of, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Abolitionists saw this and this is their theological argument against slavery. How can we treat slaves as equal? We can't. It even says in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." How can we be equal and be in favor of a system which would abolish that equality for a broad spectrum of people? It's unjustifiable! But the moment you start spouting that we can treat our bodies as property, you allow for the possibility of being unequal, of those rights being taken away. The moment that you allow someone other than yourself to own your body, you have allowed them to own your whole, and you will never be equal with anyone. If you wish to uphold the virtues of all men being equal, you cannot view yourself or others as property to be bought, sold, or controlled. The two are mutually exclusive! Look, property cannot retain rights. Therefor, my body has no rights. But I have rights? But I am indistinguishable from my body. If I have rights, my body has rights. If my body has rights and is property, then property can retain rights. But if property cannot have rights, then my body cannot have rights. And if my body cannot have rights and is wholly inseparable from I, then I have no rights. Libertarians argue against property rights being a fiction, but if it is not a fiction, then you cannot caveat a distinction of bodies being a special kind of property, because that caveat will be a fiction. DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM YET? I'll also repeat a point I made earlier, Anarco-Libertarianism relies on the same fallacy as Anarco-Communism, That all men are inherently good, and left to their own devices will do good deeds. I believe, All men are sinful, and left to their own devices will do that which they see fit in their own eyes. And that's why we need governments. Sorry, I hope it's a bit more coherent than it feels like. I don't argue on the internet too often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I also apologize for my cis-gendered privilege and using the word "men" when I actually mean "people, all of Humanity." All this line served to do was make you look like a massive whiny tool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
"People" is like three letters longer than "men" though, got to save ink.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"People" is like three letters longer than "men" though, got to save ink. It's also possible that he could have just said "Men" and left it as that because anyone who is so up their own rear end about pronoun usage that they'd take offense to non-gender neutral pronouns in a random discussion on an internet comedy forum is a sad individual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Not trying to pick on you or anything just taking the rare opportunity to make a amicable point about the inherent flaws in the "government is too big" philosophy there is very much assuredly corruption and flaws in government but because of the onerous record keeping the citizens demand from public sector workers, that the private sector never has to answer to, the only real corruption you ever see in government comes from those elected and/or appointed. "Staff" get fired, the system works. This is a really great point. Pretty much all of the bloat is anti corruption nonsense. It's a one hour seminar every year, which has to be updated, coordinated, scheduled around whatever, communicated to whoever, every year reminding you that SSNs have to be kept under lock and key and you have to document every instance of someone looking through them and why. This is done because anyone working for the DMV could make fake IDs without getting caught. It's this a million times for a million little details like where you buy chairs and what the upper limit on cost and quality of each chair is. The contract for chairs is part of a larger contract which leads to your office being contractually obligated to only purchase vending snacks through the same company at an absurd markup which gets passed on through the machine,. After x amount of time new bids are taken on a new version of this agreement with whatever companies do this bullshit. This is done to make sure it's not all being given to some director's cousin. I'd go so far as to guess that over 60% of built in administrative 'bloat' is anti-corruption. As to indvidual employmee issues, which were also brought up, that's more of a union thing. The tradeoff between abuse by employer and abuse by employee is a delicate balance, but I think overall I think the consequences of employer abuse are far far greater than the consequences of employee abuse. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 07:40
|
|
