Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Hey, now. At least some of these are modeled on insurance companies, which sounds much more enjoyable as a basis for social order.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 10:30

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

GunnerJ posted:

Hey, now. At least some of these are modeled on insurance companies, which sounds much more enjoyable as a basis for social order.

It's loving astounding how Libertarians manage to pick out all of the most frustrating and unpleasant bureaucracies in modern society and say "Yes, everything should work like these."

# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:32

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Remember, a socialist collective built the Ark, alienated labor built the Titanic

# ? Oct 29, 2015 18:43

Buried alive: Jun 8, 2009

It sounds like you've already put more thought into how libertarianism is supposed to work than most libertarian thinkers. If you're wondering how that world view is supposed to be applied and maintain coherency, stop. It either never can, or it already is. If you're wondering how people come to believe such things, then you need to look at the psychology of the believers and not the structure of the belief system.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 04:23

paragon1: Nov 22, 2010; FULL COMMUNISM NOW

OwlFancier posted:

I believe the idea is that there is no law save what is generated by the gestalt processed of society (but not what we have now, because that's bad) and these sort of inherent social laws will be enforced by anyone with the firepower and inclination to do so (enforcing a law which was unpopular would result in other people shooting you) while more locally, laws are dictated by whoever owns the landmass you're on and if you don't like them you can leave.

Unless all of their neighbors put up "No trespassing" signs.

Literally The Worst posted:

pls stay current on your dadchat epistemes

(i moved from charlotte to syracuse)

drat, my goons.xlsx file is completely out of date. :eng99:

# ? Oct 30, 2015 04:33

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

YF19pilot posted:

How are laws made/passed? Who dictates what laws exist? Can the population at large change and alter laws? Is there a mechanism for recognizing new laws and abolishing old ones? Would it be easy or hard to change laws? What checks would be in place to prevent passing laws that favor one group of people over another?
Are laws basically "rules" set by the individual property owners, so that laws can vary depending on whose property you are currently on? How would DROs be able to keep up with which laws which clients have?

This is your problem: you fundamentally misunderstand DROs if you think they're customer-service oriented entities that cater to individual yeoman farmers. DROs make the laws, and you accept whatever laws the DRO you can afford tells you to accept, because DRO coverage is mandatory and not having it is punishable by death (either quickly by criminal elements who take advantage or slowly by starvation and exposure because it's illegal to sell or trade with an uncovered person).

Here, take a minute and read this primer on DROs that jrod posted in an earlier incarnation of this thread. As you're reading it, keep in mind that it is an argument in favor of DROs and stateless law enforcement.

Stefan Molyneaux posted:

However, the stateless society goes much, much further in preventing crime � specifically, by identifying those who are going to become criminals. In this situation, the stateless society is far more effective than any State system.

In a stateless society, contracts with DROs are required to maintain any sort of economic life � without DRO representation, citizens are unable to get a job, hire employees, rent a car, buy a house or send their children to school. Any DRO will naturally ensure that its contracts include penalties for violent crimes � so if you steal a car, your DRO has the right to use force against you to get the car back � and probably retrieve financial penalties to boot.

How does this work in practice? Let's take a test case. Say that you wake up one morning and decide to become a thief. Well, the first thing you have to do is cancel your coverage with your DRO, so that your DRO cannot act against you when you steal. DROs would have clauses allowing you to cancel your coverage, just as insurance companies have now. Thus you would have to notify your DRO that you were dropping coverage. No problem, you're off their list.

However, DROs as a whole really need to keep track of people who have opted out of the entire DRO system, since those people have clearly signaled their intention to go rogue, to live off the grid, and commit crimes. Thus if you cancel your DRO insurance, your name goes into a database available to all DROs. If you sign up with another DRO, no problem, your name is taken out. However, if you do not sign up with any other DRO, red flags pop up all over the system.

What happens then? Remember � there is no public property in the stateless society. If you've gone rogue, where are you going to go? You can't take a bus � bus companies won't take rogues, because their DRO will require that they take only DRO-covered passengers, in case of injury or altercation. Want to fill up on gas? No luck, for the same reason. You can try hitchhiking, of course, which might work, but what happens when you get to your destination and try and rent a hotel room? No DRO card, no luck. Want to sleep in the park? Parks are privately owned, so keep moving. Getting hungry? No groceries, no restaurants � no food! What are you going to do?

Obviously, those without DRO representation are going to find it very hard to get around or find anything to eat. But let's go even further and imagine that, as a rogue, you are somehow able to survive long enough to start trying to steal from people's houses.

Well, the first thing that DROs are going to do is give a reward to anyone who spots you and reports your position (in fact, there will be companies which specialize in just this sort of service). As you walk down a street on your way to rob a house, someone sees you and calls you in. The DRO immediately notifies the street owner (remember, no public property!) who boots you off his street. Are you going to resist the street owner? His DRO will fully support his right to use force to protect his property or life.

So you have to get off the street. Where do you go? All the local street owners have been notified of your presence, and refuse you entrance. You can't go anywhere without trespassing. You are a pariah. No one will help you, or give you food, or shelter you � because if they do, their DRO will boot them or raise their rates, and their name will be entered into a database of people who help rogues. There is literally no place to turn.

So, really, what incentive is there to turn to a life of crime? Working for a living � and being protected by a DRO � pays really well. Going off the grid and becoming a rogue pits the entire weight of the combined DRO system against you � and, even if you do manage to survive their scrutiny and steal something, it has probably been voice-encoded or protected in some other manner against unauthorized re-use. But let's suppose that you somehow bypass all of that, and do manage to steal, where are you going to sell your stolen goods? You're not protected by a DRO, so who will buy from you, knowing they have no recourse if something goes wrong? And besides, anyone who interacts with you will get a substantial reward for reporting your location � and, if they deal with you, will be dropped from the DRO system.

Will there be underground markets? No � where would they operate? People need a place to live, cars to rent, clothes to buy, groceries to eat. No DRO means no participation in economic life.

Thus it is fair to say that any stateless society will do a far better job of protecting its citizens against crimes of motive � what, then, about crimes of passion?

Crimes of passion are harder to prevent � but also present far less of a threat to those outside of the circle in which they occur.

So, let's say a man kills his wife. They are both covered by DROs, of course, and their DRO contracts would include specific prohibitions against murder. Thus the man would be subject to all the sanctions involved in his contract � probably forced labour until a certain financial penalty was paid off, since DROs would be responsible for paying financial penalties to any next of kin.

Fine, you say, but what if either the man or woman was not covered by a DRO? Well, where would they live? No one would rent them an apartment. If they own their house free and clear, who would sell them food? Or gas? Who would employ them? What bank would accept their money? The penalties for opting out of the DRO system are almost infinite, and it is safe to say that it would be next to impossible to survive without a DRO.

But let's say that only the murderous husband � planning to kill his wife � opted out of his DRO system without telling her. Well, the first thing that his wife's DRO system would do is inform her of her husband's action � and the ill intent it may represent � and help relocate her if desired. If she decided against relocation, her DRO would promptly drop her, since by deciding to live in close proximity with a rogue man, she was exposing herself to an untenable amount of danger (and so the DRO to a high risk for financial loss!). Now both the husband and wife have chosen to live without DROs, in a state of nature, and thus face all the insurmountable problems of getting food, shelter, money and so on.

Now let's look at something slightly more complicated � stalking. A woman becomes obsessed with a man, and starts calling him at all hours and following him around. Perhaps boils a bunny or two. Well, if the man has bought insurance against stalking, his DRO leaps into action. It calls the woman's DRO, which says: stop stalking this man or we'll drop you. And how does her DRO know whether she has really given up her stalking? The man stops reporting it. And if there is a dispute, she just wears an ankle bracelet for a while to make sure. And remember � since there is no public property, she can be ordered off any property such as sidewalks, streets and parks.

(And if the man has not bought insurance against stalking, no problem � it will just be more expensive to buy with a 'pre-existing condition'!)

Although they may seem unfamiliar to you, DROs are not a new concept � they are as ancient as civilization itself, but have been shouldered aside by the constant escalation of State power over the last century or so. In the past, desired social behaviour was punished through ostracism, and risks ameliorated through voluntary 'friendly societies'. A man who left his wife and children � or a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock � was no longer welcome in decent society. DROs take these concepts one step further, by making all the information formerly known by the local community available to the world as whole, just as credit reports do. There are really no limits to the benefits that DROs can confer upon a free society � insurance could be created for such things as:

a man's wife giving birth to a child that is not his own
a daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock
fertility problems for a married couple
�and much more.
All of the above insurance policies would require DROs to take active steps to prevent such behaviours � the mind boggles at all the preventative steps that could be taken! The important thing to remember is that all such contracts are voluntary, and so do not violate the moral absolute of non-violence.

Let me reiterate: the above was posted by jrodefeld to convince us to adopt this system, and not an exercise in speculative fiction about how a horrific Shadowrun dystopia would function.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 05:34

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Molyneaux starts tipping his hand when his example of stalking goes "a woman becomes obsessed with a man, and starts calling him at all hours," but the rapidity with which the mask completely drops after that is breathtaking. Triple-H wants Covenant Communities to kick out the blacks, Steve Freedomain wants DROs to control cheating psycho sluts.

Also why do they capitalize the word "state" anyway?

# ? Oct 30, 2015 05:46

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

GunnerJ posted:

Molyneaux starts tipping his hand when his example of stalking goes "a woman becomes obsessed with a man, and starts calling him at all hours," but the rapidity with which the mask completely drops after that is breathtaking. Triple-H wants Covenant Communities to kick out the blacks, Steve Freedomain wants DROs to control cheating psycho sluts.

Also why do they capitalize the word "state" anyway?

Don't forget Herbert Spencer arguing that the free market produces humane eugenics, culling undesirables for the betterment of humanity

# ? Oct 30, 2015 05:51

Reicere: Nov 5, 2009; Not sooo looouuud!!!

GunnerJ posted:

Also why do they capitalize the word "state" anyway?

I'm pretty sure it's the same thing that was pointed out early on in Prester John's excellent thread about Authoritarians.

They are literal crazy people with real mental illnesses.

EDIT: actually, the relevant quote seems to have came from a different thread originally. I'll transplant it here.

Schizotek posted:

And the capitalization thing people mentioned is just something schizos tend to do even when they aren't babbling about the CIA trying to assassinate them by slipping an empty Monster can underneath their brake pedal. It's "this represents a concept related to but not identical to this words textbook meaning, but I don't have a separate word for what I'm trying to describe so I'll turn it into a proper noun to distinguish that", as opposed to just trying to make it look scary. Normal people do it too but it's practically a schizophrenia trademark.

Reicere fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Oct 30, 2015

# ? Oct 30, 2015 06:00

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

I legit needed to read that thing a dozen or so times the first time around to keep reminding myself this wasn't a parody trying to accuse Molyneaux of being a sexist, this was just his legit attempt to make a proposal that everyone could get behind and was totally nondystopian.

"A man quits his DRO. What happens to his wife?" "She must leave the house immediately and find new shelter elsewhere or else she will be left to fend for herself from a man her DRO assumes is trying to kill her

# ? Oct 30, 2015 06:00

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Oh hey, by the way, remember that this is all "voluntary," well, for the meaning of voluntary that goes "any decision you make without anyone literally threatening to hurt you," i.e., the best meaning, i.e., the technical one. Leftists question whether employment contracts can really be called fully consensual given the alternatives available to workers for economic survival, but loopholes in the nature of contractual consent like this aren't bugs in libertarian ethics, they're features.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 06:17

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

What happens when a DRO decides to declare that, say, only it is allowed to operate at the Citadel, Gas Town, and the Bullet Farm?

# ? Oct 30, 2015 06:30

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Nessus posted:

What happens when a DRO decides to declare that, say, only it is allowed to operate at the Citadel, Gas Town, and the Bullet Farm?

Murray Rothbard posted:

Of course, some of the private defense agencies will become criminal, just as some people become criminal now. But the point is that in a stateless society there would be no regular, legalized channel for crime and aggression, no government apparatus the control of which provides a secure monopoly for invasion of person and property...To create such an instrument de novo is very difficult, and, indeed, almost impossible; historically, it took State rulers centuries to create a functioning State apparatus."

Power vacuums can't exist, because we'll all have a very specific form of amnesia that will require us to reinvent the state.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 07:43

CovfefeCatCafe: Apr 11, 2006; A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Power vacuums can't exist, because we'll all have a very specific form of amnesia that will require us to reinvent the state.

From: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

Stefan Molyneux posted:

The second problem is the fear that a particular DRO will grow in size and stature to the point where it takes on all the features and properties of a new State.

This is a superstitious fear, because there is no historical example of a private company replacing a political State. While it is true that companies regularly use State coercion to enforce trading restrictions, high tariffs, cartels and other mercantilist tricks, surely this reinforces the danger of the State, not the inevitability of companies growing into States. All States destroy societies. No company has ever destroyed a society without the aid of the State. Thus the fear that a private company can somehow grow into a State is utterly unfounded in fact, experience, logic and history.

If society becomes frightened of a particular DRO, then it can simply stop doing business with it, which will cause it to collapse. If that DRO, as it collapses, somehow transforms itself from a group of secretaries, statisticians, accountants and contract lawyers into a ruthless domestic militia and successfully takes over society � and how unlikely is that! � then such a State will then be imposed on the general population. However, there are two problems even with this most unlikely scare scenario. First of all, if any DRO can take over society and impose itself as a new State, why only a DRO? Why not the Rotary Club? Why not a union? Why not the Mafia? The YMCA? The SPCA? Is society to then ban all groups with more than a hundred members? Clearly that is not a feasible solution, and so society must live with the risk of a brutal coup by ninja accountants as much as from any other group.

This guy just doesn't understand people, does he?

# ? Oct 30, 2015 07:52

Caros: May 14, 2008

YF19pilot posted:

From: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

quote:
Stefan Molyneux posted:
The second problem is the fear that a particular DRO will grow in size and stature to the point where it takes on all the features and properties of a new State.

This is a superstitious fear, because there is no historical example of a private company replacing a political State. While it is true that companies regularly use State coercion to enforce trading restrictions, high tariffs, cartels and other mercantilist tricks, surely this reinforces the danger of the State, not the inevitability of companies growing into States. All States destroy societies. No company has ever destroyed a society without the aid of the State. Thus the fear that a private company can somehow grow into a State is utterly unfounded in fact, experience, logic and history.

If society becomes frightened of a particular DRO, then it can simply stop doing business with it, which will cause it to collapse. If that DRO, as it collapses, somehow transforms itself from a group of secretaries, statisticians, accountants and contract lawyers into a ruthless domestic militia and successfully takes over society � and how unlikely is that! � then such a State will then be imposed on the general population. However, there are two problems even with this most unlikely scare scenario. First of all, if any DRO can take over society and impose itself as a new State, why only a DRO? Why not the Rotary Club? Why not a union? Why not the Mafia? The YMCA? The SPCA? Is society to then ban all groups with more than a hundred members? Clearly that is not a feasible solution, and so society must live with the risk of a brutal coup by ninja accountants as much as from any other group.

This guy just doesn't understand people, does he?

But it wouldn't be replacing a political state because there wouldn't be a state? :confused:

I mean no poo poo blackwater or McDonalds don't rise up and replace the US when the US is king poo poo of the mountain. In the absence of the US government however, why is it so hard for this moron to believe that a private company might beat up (or buy out) all the other DRO's and thus gain a monopoly of force, at which point it gives precisely zero fucks whether you want to deal with them or not.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 08:00

Heavy neutrino: Sep 16, 2007; You made a fine post for yourself. ...For a casualry, I suppose.

There's god knows how many historical examples of non-state groups establishing states under their control, but Molyneux is a dishonest idiot who can only deny the idea by narrowing it down to the specific example of a modern corporation overthrowing a modern state.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 08:32

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

"There is no historical example of a modern capitalist firm assuming the functions of the state without the aid of the state. Of course there are also no historical examples of a modern capitalist firm existing without a state, but, details..."

# ? Oct 30, 2015 08:36

America Inc.: Nov 22, 2013; I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even 500 would be pretty nice.

Ironically, the way DRO treats "rogues" sounds like the former USSR's crime of parasitism.
In fact, considering ownership and access to all resources goes through DROs they sound very communist.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 08:41

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

Ironically, the way DRO treats "rogues" sounds like the former USSR's crime of parasitism.
In fact, considering ownership and access to all resources goes through DROs they sound very communist.

With literally none of the benefits though. It's really just more like a feudal society (also with none of the benefits.) Be sure to avert your gaze when the regional manager passes you in the street.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 08:47

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I assume history did not exist prior to the creation of the State, doubtless by the Demiurge.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 08:50

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

I especially like the idea that if one of the companies that has a lot of guns and dudes trained to use those guns gets so big and powerful that it becomes a concern, the rest of society can just stop doing business with them with no consequences whatsoever. Because surely said group would just quietly disband at that point.

When your utopia literally is warlordism in everything but the name, it might be time to rethink your position.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 09:01

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

It's pretty amazing that DROs are able to exact swift and unerring justice (and preemptive justice like forcing your daughter to wear a GPS ankle bracelet and virgin alarm) with overwhelming force, but also they are nothing but unarmed accountants and actuaries because after all why would they need weapons when no rational individual would ever commit a crime?

# ? Oct 30, 2015 09:03

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

VitalSigns posted:

It's pretty amazing that DROs are able to exact swift and unerring justice (and preemptive justice like forcing your daughter to wear a GPS ankle bracelet and virgin alarm) with overwhelming force, but also they are nothing but unarmed accountants and actuaries because after all why would they need weapons when no rational individual would ever commit a crime?

Well of course they'd all be heavily armed, this is a libertarian society. And everyone else would be too. I guess your daughter wouldn't shoot the people forcing a virgin alarm on her because that would invalidate her insurance, so she's forced to grimly accept your will out of economic necessity. Human freedom!

# ? Oct 30, 2015 09:11

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

I just love that all theories of power and coercion that have been advanced in the last century and a half are either ignored or treated as manuals by Libertarians. Social alienation due to having your body and labour time owned by a capitalist? Bah, that's commie rubbish. Rationalisation and over-bearing bureaucracy being impersonal forces that can't be fought leads you to give up resistance? We dislike the state, but maybe we could still preserve this through a complex system of insurance and law enforcement? A feeling of constant surveillance even when not being surveilled? Now that's a model for the free society!

# ? Oct 30, 2015 09:28

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Libertarians gushing about the wonderful surveillance ~~state~~ corporatocracy we'll have once we finally abolish the constitution and its pernicious due process protections and presumption of innocence is the second-best thing, exceeded only by the rare times the narrative masks falls away completely and "Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals � robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?"

# ? Oct 30, 2015 10:31

RocketLunatic: May 6, 2005; i love lamp.

Those insane DRO imagined societies resemble North Korea more than any sort of free society.

Don't you imagine DROs would develop monopolies or exclusive contracts on certain communities. Or patrol their communities without impunity.

Don't have an updated DRO registration card or your DRO is not of the appropriate class or premium level or your DRO doesn't have an established relationship with our DRO or you are black/mixed race/indigenous? You ain't welcome here.

In North Korea, the DRO (aka the government) punishes people who break the rules generationally (up to 3 generations above and below). Road blocks prevent people from traveling between towns without the proper clearance or access. Citizens are required to report any wrongdoing or they get punished (and have their DRO standing revoked). If you try to escape, by any means, since there is no public land, citizens are organized along railroads, roads, paths, and elsewhere to spot escapees. Breaking rules means you are rejecting societal rules and no longer a comrade/libertarian/etc.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 13:26

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

DROs are how I know for an undeniable fact that Jrod is outright lying when he says he believes in the non-aggression principal. He, like the libertarians who do his thinking for him, loves the idea of Men With Guns and monopolies on violence. Their real problem with the state has never been that it coerces its citizens with the threat of being blown away by the military, their real issue is that they aren't in control of it. They want to be the ones wearing the jackboots as it presses down upon the necks of the proles. They want to be the ones with the power to get back at those they hate, be they blacks, women, or that slut in the seventh grade who wouldn't go to the Saddie Hawkins date with them.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 14:12

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

YF19pilot posted:

This guy just doesn't understand people, does he?

Isn't it ironic that one of the Libertarian Free Market tropes is that we cannot predict the results of economic choices because we cannot understand people?

# ? Oct 30, 2015 14:14

1994 Toyota Celica: Sep 11, 2008; by Nyc_Tattoo

Heavy neutrino posted:

There's god knows how many historical examples of non-state groups establishing states under their control, but Molyneux is a dishonest idiot who can only deny the idea by narrowing it down to the specific example of a modern corporation overthrowing a modern state.

and he's still wrong what with the British East India Company

# ? Oct 30, 2015 14:19

Malleum: Aug 16, 2014; Am I the one at fault? What about me is wrong?; Buglord

zeal posted:

and he's still wrong what with the British East India Company

India wasn't a modern state because they were a bunch of brown people ipso facto Molyneux is never wrong ever.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 14:51

1994 Toyota Celica: Sep 11, 2008; by Nyc_Tattoo

molyneux needs to get hauled before a Mughal court for not paying his dhimmi tax

# ? Oct 30, 2015 15:54

CovfefeCatCafe: Apr 11, 2006; A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

Malleum posted:

India wasn't a modern state because they were a bunch of brown people ipso facto Molyneux is never wrong ever.

Also, the British State allowed the British East India Company to become what they were, therefor it is an act of statist aggression and :shrek:

# ? Oct 30, 2015 15:55

FilthIncarnate: Aug 13, 2007; Weird owl has life all figured out

zeal posted:

and he's still wrong what with the British East India Company

Also Hawaii, for what it's worth; the centuries-old native monarchy there was overthrown by a group of haole plantation owners who then petitioned the US to make them a state and legitimize their revolution.

and that wasn't even too long ago

# ? Oct 30, 2015 16:11

Ravenfood: Nov 4, 2011

FilthIncarnate posted:

Also Hawaii, for what it's worth; the centuries-old native monarchy there was overthrown by a group of haole plantation owners who then petitioned the US to make them a state and legitimize their revolution.

and that wasn't even too long ago

See? Statist oppression everywhere!

# ? Oct 30, 2015 16:32

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Since DROs would be "voluntary," you would of course have to sign a contract for their services. I can't wait to find out what kind of protection from liability and arbitration clauses they would write into those. You know how by signing up with PayPal or whatever you give up your right to sue them? Yeah.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 17:01

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001

Gee fellas, I'm starting to get the idea that maybe-no wait hear me out on this one, maybe libertarians have such a murky definition of what constitutes aggression intentionally as it allows them to legitimize what violence they approve of while simultaneously claiming a moral high ground.

CommieGIR posted:

Isn't it ironic that one of the Libertarian Free Market tropes is that we cannot predict the results of economic choices because we cannot understand people?

Well you see my friend, if we start from the simple axiom that Humans Act, we can subsequently logically determ- *prolonged, squeak fart*

# ? Oct 30, 2015 17:17

Ron Paul Atreides: Apr 19, 2012; Uyghurs situation in Xinjiang? Just a police action, do not fret. Not ongoing genocide like in EVIL Canada.

I am definitely not a tankie.

YF19pilot posted:

Also, the British State allowed the British East India Company to become what they were, therefor it is an act of statist aggression and

see now your getting it

# ? Oct 30, 2015 17:18

Caros: May 14, 2008

VitalSigns posted:

Libertarians gushing about the wonderful surveillance ~~state~~ corporatocracy we'll have once we finally abolish the constitution and its pernicious due process protections and presumption of innocence is the second-best thing, exceeded only by the rare times the narrative masks falls away completely and "Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals � robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?"

This is a combination of actual Murray Rothbard quotes by the way.

# ? Oct 30, 2015 19:17

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

And here are the bits right before that!

quote:

Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS.

Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.

Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire "civil rights" structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.

We're not racist, we just want to destroy "civil rights" and the political power of the "underclass."

# ? Oct 30, 2015 20:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 10:30

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Nolanar posted:

And here are the bits right before that!

We're not racist, we just want to destroy "civil rights" and the political power of the "underclass."

"We'll run the entire country on charitable donations! No, this is not a bad plan!"

# ? Oct 30, 2015 20:20

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

«‹›115 »