|
quote:In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. It's funny because this is the point where you expect the author to suggest that "therefore, the purely free society is poo poo."
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's funny because this is the point where you expect the author to suggest that "therefore, the purely free society is poo poo." That article is a goldmine. It argues that there is currently a great demand for children by foster parents, a demand which is being unmet by the monopoly of government and government approved adoption agencies which do not compensate the parent for transferring ownership of their child to someone else. That if we allowed parents to sell their children for money, that this demand could be met. Except, of course, there is no great demand for foster children, and many cities have thousands of unwanted children who they can't find homes for. And it ignores the ethical and moral dilemma of making babies for money, but Libertarianism isn't based on what's ethical or moral, only what is property.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:but Libertarianism isn't based on what's ethical or moral, only what is property. Or to put it another way, it makes what is property define what it considers ethical or moral. We went over this in the previous libertarian thread; essentially, the result is a moral system that's so alien to human behavior that it has to be discarded at the first challenge (the various "lifeboat scenarios" Rothbard decries, or even VitalSigns' series of hypotheticals earlier in the thread about hanging off a property owner's window.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
oh hey are you lot those crazy fucks who want to start a colony with no laws on a cargo ship or some poo poo? Sealand or whateverthefuck? The gently caress's the deal with that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Astrofig posted:oh hey are you lot those crazy fucks who want to start a colony with no laws on a cargo ship or some poo poo? Sealand or whateverthefuck? The gently caress's the deal with that? http://inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's still quite annoying that jrodefeld hasn't answered his own question in the thread title. It's been many days, and it's simply uncouth. The funny thing is, he can't answer it because 'property rights are the root from which all rights spring' is axiomatic to libertarians. He can't give a argument for it that's not circular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
I'm still not even clear on what my body being my property means. Does that mean I own my body in the same way I own the tablet I am writing this post out with? Can I sue my mother for giving me a defective body, or do I get it as is? Since parents own their children and can thus sell them as they see fit, can they also do other things with their kids bodies like get them tattoos or sell one of their arms? Can I sign contracts and offer a pound of flesh as collateral? Why would I want any of these things?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Astrofig posted:oh hey are you lot those crazy fucks who want to start a colony with no laws on a cargo ship or some poo poo? Sealand or whateverthefuck? The gently caress's the deal with that? It's called "seasteading." There was also talk about parking a ship in international waters near San Francisco in order to attract all the hot young coding talent to economically take over the world. By creating a new nation, making them all citizens of it, and refusing to pay U.S. taxes while still working the U.S. Because the U.S. government would very obviously be totally, completely OK with that in every possible way and by no means squash it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
The thing I love about the "body as property" argument is that every single time he lays it out to a new person, the response is always the same: "sooo, can I sell myself then? That's pretty hosed up." The response we get is either "of course not, that would be silly," "sure, but you can take yourself back at any time, because that's how property works or something," or silence. Because the body as property isn't actually something libertarians care about. It's just an attempt to convince people that believing in human rights means you have to believe in Lockean property rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's still quite annoying that jrodefeld hasn't answered his own question in the thread title. It's been many days, and it's simply uncouth. If journalism taught me anything, it's that when they ask a question in the title the answer is typically "no".
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I'll also repeat a point I made earlier, Anarcho-communism is a government of the community, though. It's merely against the concept of a state. It also doesn't assume that everyone is inherently good. The basic way of considering it is that in an anarchic commune, there is no formal law, and instead is a principle of "don't be a dick" - everyone works together as best they can for the good of the group. If someone is injured or disabled, they don't have to work. If someone can work but chooses not to, they are violating the dick principle, and will be given less resources (i.e. food or booze). Decisions on dickishness are given by judgement of the community as a whole, and follows the spirit of the 'law' instead of tying itself up in the minutae of a written law. This isn't the whole of it but acting like communism assumes universal benevolence is disingenuous and a straw man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Basically the main topic of polite conversation in an ancom society should be gossiping about your neighbours, because social pressure is the main form of policing behaviour within the system. I suppose it beats the social alienation of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
And the whole community enjoys a good lynch mob if someone decides to be a little murdery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
is this because of snow crash? hopefully they get to the pizza delivery ninjas sooner than the libertarian reef
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:The thing I love about the "body as property" argument is that every single time he lays it out to a new person, the response is always the same: "sooo, can I sell myself then? That's pretty hosed up." The response we get is either "of course not, that would be silly," "sure, but you can take yourself back at any time, because that's how property works or something," or silence. Because the body as property isn't actually something libertarians care about. It's just an attempt to convince people that believing in human rights means you have to believe in Lockean property rights. Some aspects of Locke's theories and their historical context are pretty interesting given some of the most common arguments in this thread: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/ quote:Locke’s theory of property is similarly self-serving. It’s generally seen as a historical fiction, used to justify currently existing property rights, despite the fact that they cannot really have been acquired in the way that Locke suggests. As Hume objected, “there is no property in durable objects, such as lands or houses, when carefully examined in passing from hand to hand, but must, in some period, have been founded on fraud and injustice.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:is this because of snow crash? We live in the worst possible version of cyberpunk. Where's my loving skull gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:We live in the worst possible version of cyberpunk. Where's my loving skull gun. You'll have to ask Manderly to get it requisitioned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You'll have to ask Manderly to get it requisitioned. I'm still waiting on the soda machine getting fixed, it keeps giving me lemon-lime!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's still quite annoying that jrodefeld hasn't answered his own question in the thread title. It's been many days, and it's simply uncouth. It doesn't really matter. If he actually cared he'd recognize the need for a state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It doesn't really matter. If he actually cared he'd recognize the need for a state. The best part about ancap utopias is every time they try to start one either (1) it's a scam and someone runs away with all the money, or (2) they crumple at the slightest show of force from a nearby state no matter how tiny. Jrod seems to at least be unconsciously aware enough to continue living within the protection of the evil coercive US government rather than actually trying to go be a property owner somewhere with no method of enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
IF everyone agrees to NAP THEN libertopia  ELSE mooch off the welfare state and moan about how there's no way around it
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The best part about ancap utopias is every time they try to start one either (1) it's a scam and someone runs away with all the money, or (2) they crumple at the slightest show of force from a nearby state no matter how tiny. Didn't one of them get "conquered" when a nearby African nation, off who's shore they were squatting on a sandbar, sent its Army's marching band to roust them out, or something similar? Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Didn't one of them get "conquered" when a nearby African nation, off who's shore they were squatting on a sandbar, sent it's Army's marching band to roust them out, or something similar? Pretty sure that was the "Republic of Minerva" built up on a reef between Tonga and Fiji before being ousted by the mighty Tongan military (and marching band). edit: http://www.queenoftheisles.com/HTML/Republic%20of%20Minerva.html quote:"On 21 June 1972, the worlds heaviest monarch, King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV of Tonga accompanied by members of the Tongan Defence Force, a convict work detail and a four piece brass band, set sail from his kingdom aboard the royal yacht Olovaha. On the king's stately mind was one thought, the invasion of the Republic of Minerva".
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Pretty sure that was the "Republic of Minerva" built up on a reef between Tonga and Fiji before being ousted by the mighty Tongan military (and marching band). Ah, had a few details wrong. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Pretty sure that was the "Republic of Minerva" built up on a reef between Tonga and Fiji before being ousted by the mighty Tongan military (and marching band). You didn't link the best part. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Some aspects of Locke's theories and their historical context are pretty interesting given some of the most common arguments in this thread: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/ That's a pretty good article, and it links to another good article about Thomas Paine. T-Paine posted:Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. I guess people have been yelling at JRod for centuries. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's still quite annoying that jrodefeld hasn't answered his own question in the thread title. It's been many days, and it's simply uncouth. We were supposed to gasp when we saw the thread title. "Oh my god have I given off the impression that I don't care about property rights?" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Chrungka posted:Educate yourself and weep: https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights So is Libertarianism literally like, the end-stage of capitalism? Reducing all life, society, and interaction to the concept of property and trade? Also what kind of weird consumption driven robot would think that's actually a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:That's a pretty good article, and it links to another good article about Thomas Paine. Paine was a Marxist before there was even a Marx and it cracks me up to no end knowing that he's part of the mythologized "Founding Fathers" conservatives talk about 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Paine was a Marxist before there was even a Marx and it cracks me up to no end knowing that he's part of the mythologized "Founding Fathers" conservatives talk about There's a reason they don't bring him up much outside of the context of "Common Sense" and "The Crisis," and especially stay mute on everything he got up to after, oh I don't know let's pick a date at random here, 1789.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also what kind of weird consumption driven robot would think that's actually a good idea? Jrod is a faulty AI trying to wirehead itself with property rights. It's not very good at this, however, so it wanders the internet proselytizing poorly. If you think about it, this explains everything. Jrod's inability to change writing styles. Jrod's inability to take in new or conflicting information. Jrod's use of Mises as a sole source. Jrod's complete lack of arguments that make sense from a human perspective. The need for logic chains instead of consequentialist reasoning, the assumptions that are axiomatically true. The idea that people will follow the rules of NAP because how can one not follow one's rules?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Some aspects of Locke's theories and their historical context are pretty interesting given some of the most common arguments in this thread: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/ Related to this, kind of gives it away when he's calling it a "homestead principle," doesn't it? My (probably really lovely) quick research suggests the earliest reference to "homesteading" as a verb is the Homestead Act of 1862. Although "homestead" was in use prior to that as a name for a piece of land on which a family lived, it wasn't until this act, and the Canadian Dominion Lands Act a decade later that the word seemingly came into this use as claiming a parcel of virgin land for private improvement. So to me, the problem is that this theory of property ownership is a really only suited to (state sanctioned!) colonization and settlement of North America through the 19th century (and I believe a similar law or system existed in Australia around the same time). When there's a massive frontier free for the taking by anyone who will work the land, I can see why you might reject a state run social safety net on the theory that any able bodied adult who can't earn a living in established society always has the option to pack up and head out West, claim a parcel and be able to sustain himself either by living off the land or developing it in some way. But in our modern world, that out is no longer available- there is very little, if any, unclaimed productive land to homestead, certainly not enough for every un- or underemployed citizen. Hell, even Locke's argument on which the homestead principle is based has this caveat - his labor theory of property holds only where "there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." Of course later libertarian writers later rejected this portion. As your article says, it serves as a great justification for the enrichment of early American industrialists, but it isn't a very useful theory for anybody else anymore. Reztes fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
There's another consequence of the homestead principle that I don't think has been mentioned yet. It completely precludes the ability to have national parks or other nature preserves. Hell, it even prevents strategic resource reserves (oil or mineral) without farming on top of them. Why is this not terrible?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Reztes posted:Related to this, kind of gives it away when he's calling it a "homestead principle," doesn't it? My (probably really lovely) quick research suggests the earliest reference to "homesteading" as a verb is the Homestead Act of 1862. Although "homestead" was in use prior to that as a name for a piece of land on which a family lived, it wasn't until this act, and the Canadian Dominion Lands Act a decade later that the word seemingly came into this use as claiming a parcel of virgin land for private improvement. I've never really thought about it before now, but yeah, the dominant mental image that comes to mind whenever someone says "homesteading" is some Little House on the Prairie poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
 Homesteading is the only legitimate form of property rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
No, but you see, the Little House on the Prairie was illegitimate homesteading because it was the State that was parceling out the territory, the same State that perpetrated such horrific actions as this:Caros posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Jesus why is that photo even on the poster? So you can literally spit in the red man's face on your way to stealing his home?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Reztes posted:Jesus why is that photo even on the poster? So you can literally spit in the red man's face on your way to stealing his home? That, and to allow the viewer to congratulate themselves on being of a more civilized race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
theshim posted:No, but you see, the Little House on the Prairie was illegitimate homesteading because it was the State that was parceling out the territory, the same State that perpetrated such horrific actions as this: This reminds me, has anyone brought up the Probability Broach: http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
Caros posted:
man Colorado must be a real shithole look at that discount
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:48
|
|