|
team overhead smash posted:I think the issue is that you mostly don't want to engage in a written debate and you don't defend your points. There are people who make honest efforts to reply to your posts and if you wanted you could be having a written debate because that's basically what a forum discussion is. You're right. That is one reason why I would like to find some way to have a written debate with a few of you so the clutter and unwieldyness of these posts don't make communication difficult or impossible. I also don't have the time I'd like to spend debating these issues so when normal life intrudes, you think I am ducking out and avoiding tough questions. I'd much rather stick to a single issue at a time, hash that out for a reasonable length of time and then move on to another issue. Another problem is that everyone wants to have the last word and whoever gets the last word thinks that they "won" because the other person didn't respond. At a certain point, I will have said what I have to say on a topic and you all will have said what you have to say and we just have to leave it at that for the moment. I'll try to ignore substance-less posts and respond to more substantive posts moving forward.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
Jrod, what's your opinion on Bioshock/rapture?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
"Freedom", as understood by the right, which is the primary ideological parent of libertarianism, is not about lack of restrictions, but about control. Freedom of property means absolute control over property. Freedom of speech means controlling whether listeners must respect what you say or not. Thus, support for slavery is entirely in line with libertarianism, especially given how many libertarians believe the logic of the market governs all our behaviors. Objections to it from libertarians are largely in the realm of intellectual dilettantry and propagandizing, to be blunt.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Ah look, he's claiming Lysander Spooner as a libertarian fellow-traveller again. At least he's learned to not name him directly this time, I guess that's something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What you are doing is spreading a gross caricature of libertarianism that says more about your own prejudices than it does about actual libertarian thought. Libertarians care more about low taxes than slavery? Really? I guess we can forget about all the classical liberal abolitionist writings and the statements that repeatedly say that slavery is the most egregious violation of human liberty. This sounds like something progressives make up about libertarians while snuggled in their own tight-knit bubble of self-reinforcing ideologies. Alternately, it's what anyone familiar with the words of Walter Block might say: Walter Block posted:Here’s the situation. My child is gravely ill. Only an operation can save his life. But, this medical care costs $100 million, and I am a poor man (we assume away the possibility of government health care that will swoop in and ruin our example). Seemingly, my only option is to witness the passing away of my beloved child. But wait! Rafe Mair, richer than Bill Gates, has for a long time wanted me to be his slave. He’d like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him. He values this opportunity way more than the medical costs necessary to save my child’s life. So, we strike a deal. Rafe gives me the $100 million, which I immediately turn over to the hospital. Then, I go to Mair’s plantation, and become his slave. Note carefully the text in bold: why would we need to "assume away" a government-provided universal healthcare system for this example to work? Why would taxes going to support such a system not be preferable to "voluntary slavery" if what you say is true? Block tries to square the circle: Walter Block posted:It should by now be clear that there is a gigantic, stupendous difference between these two types of slavery, voluntary slavery and coercive slavery. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, except for sharing one word, "slavery." Ordinary traditional slavery amounts to kidnapping, theft of labor, unlawful imprisonment, etc. The voluntary variety of slavery involves none of that. I, as a father, walked into this type of slavery with my eyes open; completely open. There was no force or fraud involved in the consummation of this arrangement. But it is not actually true that "voluntary" and "coercive" slavery have nothing in common but a name. Functionally, they have everything in common except for the conditions under which someone becomes a slave. According to Block, a master can order his slaves to do anything and violently punish slaves for disobedience. According to Block, the slave has no legal rights to redress and the law will be on the master's side. Here's a more formal description (found here) of his idea: Walter Block posted:You are a rich man who has long desired to have me as a slave, to order about as you will, even to kill me for disobedience or on the basis of any other whim which may occur to you. My child has now fallen ill with a dread disease. Fortunately, there is a cure. Unfortunately, it will cost one million dollars, and I, a poor man, do not have such funds at my disposal. Fortunately, you are willing to pay me this amount if I sign myself over to you as a slave, which I am very willing to do since my child’s life is vastly more important to me than my own liberty, or even my own life. Unfortunately, this would be illegal, at least if the doctrine of inalienability (non-transferability) is valid. If so, then you, the rich man, will not buy me into slavery, for I can run away at any time, and the forces of law and order will come to my rescue, not yours, if you try to stop me by force. The master can kill his slaves for any reason. Actually, the only thing it doesn't have in common with coercive slavery is the point of entry. In every other respect, it is full-on straight-up slavery. Anyone concerned with actual liberty should not be able to defend this condition on the grounds that one "volunteered" for it (to satisfy a life-or-death need lacking any other recourse). Leaning on such a loophole shows a disregard for liberty, and reveals a very different agenda. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
How can you claim that libertarians don't care about slavery when you yourself held up a study that doesn't consider the institution of slavery important enough to factor into their analysis? It sounds like the Cato Institute is fine with slavery, and I guess it's libertarian enough that you were willing to use their writings as proof of your claims. How can you blame us for concluding that libertarians are neutral-to-positive on slavery, when you give us that kind of evidence? If the Cato Institute isn't really libertarian, why did you cite it? Which individuals and organizations do count as libertarian, if not the Cato Institute? E: How can we trust anything you cite, if you'll just hand-wave it away with a "No no no, I'm not responsible for the quality of my evidence. It's the researchers' fault they put out shoddy information, not my fault for believing them!" Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Also gently caress off with trying to claim loving abolitionists as libertarians, you loving shitstain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I got a response The trick is to repeatedly and viciously insult him. Caros we should organize a roundtable audio discussion about why libertarians in general and jrod in particular are dumb and also bad. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What you are doing is spreading a gross caricature of libertarianism that says more about your own prejudices than it does about actual libertarian thought. Well I'd consider Hans-Hermann Hoppe to be a pretty gross caricature and that didn't stop you citing him, at least until the rest of us beat some sense into you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Also, your last-minute effort to separate "personal freedoms" and "economic freedoms" to somehow salvage the Cato Foundation's bullshit is really laughable but I don't feel like making a big post of it. To summarize my thoughts on the matter, anyone claiming to be interested in freedom should realize that all the low taxes and regulations in the world are meaningless to someone who can't express something as fundamental as their sexuality or religion without persecution, and by the same token if you lack any economic agency to change your situation without risking destitution, social liberties that may be allowed on paper become kind of irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:The trick is to repeatedly and viciously insult him. I'm starting to wonder, when I thought about it I realized all my closet libertarian friends have never admitted a fault in their position. Empiricism is only valid when it supports their FYGM economic policies too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Okay bitches. I've got some nice rum to make this bearable... but before I start I'd like to give you guys an appropriate soundtrack for the effortpost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9FImc2LOr8 Truly the debate music of our time. jrodefeld posted:While I wait for a response to my previous post, I'd like to again return to the subject of this thread. Frankly I'm not prepared to spend my time reading through all 35 pages of replies to take a tally of how many of you responded with substance about what constitutes just private property rights in your view, but from what I have read, I'd wager the number is small indeed. I hate to start off with a nitpick, but don't you think it is a little insulting to make your thread, lob a few grenades and then ignore every response (many of which were serious effort posts)? I mean I can accept you not having enough time to want to read over everything, but you don't get to come back and in essence say "I didn't read anything you guys posted while I was gone, but I'm guessing most of it was garbage that didn't address my point"? Just a thought about tone.  quote:To state the obvious, it is not only libertarians who value private property rights. All political ideologies have a strong conviction on private property. Marxists have a deeply felt conviction that the product of the worker's labor is their property and therefore the Capitalist is a thief by pocketing a profit from the product manufactured by the worker. That is why they feel it is justified for the workers to rise up and take control of the factories, taking them away from the Capitalist. It is not a random whim that is used to justify re-appropriation of property from the perceived thief to the "rightful" owner, but a consistent if mistaken concept of just property rights. If you have to state that it is obvious then it probably isn't. If it is then you wouldn't need to state it. Just saying. Also, as other posters have pointed out, no. Marxism didn't believe that the worker owned their labor, it was a theory that ownership by individuals was largely immoral. It is frankly very telling that you can't tell or don't know the difference. While I'm on the subject I will ask my first question of the effortpost: Why is is 'mistaken'? quote:Several posters on this very site accused me and fellow libertarians of committing "theft" if we were a tax protester to refused to pay taxes to the State. Therefore the principle is that the State, or "society", has a property right in the fruits of my labor. That is your property rights belief. I did! I did do that! And for the record that is the de facto property rights system of the vast majority of people in the country in which you reside. Even if people don't necessisarily agree with it in those terms provided, ninety five percent of americans believe paying taxes to be a civic duty and believe that people who cheat on their taxes are guilty of a crime. Since there isn't really any alternative crime I can think that would work, it stands to reason that they believe evading taxes is effectively theft. Just wanted to reiterate it because you are treating this as just another theory rather than the practical reality in which you live. quote:Yet when pressed for elaboration, Caros in particular retreated into abstraction. "We're just a bunch of hairless apes who do whatever 'works'. There are no property rights but only utilitarian in-the-moment value-judgments on whose control of scarce resources are to be respected and whose are not." This is obviously a paraphrase but it comes pretty close to the argument offered. Yet if one is concerned at all with justice, as so many progressives claim to be, then a very clear ethical standard which informs us who has rightful control of what scarce resource must be clearly established. You may not agree with the libertarian standard, but an equally clear definition of just property must be offered in its place. I in no way retreated into abstraction. I have happily spelled out the specifics of my argument on multiple occasions. The mere fact that you refuse to acknowledge the arguments presented before you (how many times have I asked you to actually address this now?) does not negate the existence of that argument. Moreover you are incorrectly characterizing my argument, either intentionally or through ignorance so allow me to restate it for you yet again: Property rights are a fiction. They are not some universal force like gravity, but instead a social fiction created between humans in the exact same fashion as money. Property rights are nothing more than the societal agreement that you are allowed to use force (or to have others do so on your behalf) to defend or retrieve property that the social group in question agrees belongs to you. That is it. They are simply a method of determining who has access to what in a social group because the alternative is might makes right. To date you have made no counter argument against this description, and I really don't believe you can. I absolutely agree that we must have a workable societally agreed upon system to determine who has access to what. That does not presuppose that I must agree with your hugely flawed and impractical system, just as I don't have to agree that Genghis Khan had it right. quote:As I previously stated, libertarians believe that the original way that just property is acquired is through original appropriation i.e homesteading. I was challenged with a good question, which I will try to answer here. "Since all land in 2015, or at least all desirable land where humans congregate is owned by somebody, or at least some property right is asserted, why does it matter how property was originally acquired? We don't live on the frontier where original appropriation of unowned natural resources is possible for almost anyone, so of what practical use is this abstract concept?" You called it a good question twice. That is weird. You are weird. As I have previously stated, very few people here give a single gently caress about the fact that libertarians believe homesteading is the 'one true property rights system'. Your argument that you have formulated a coherent logical theory is meaningless because you are starting from a series of presuppositions that are not universally agreed upon. This harkens back to the point many people have made that I can make a perfectly logical and coherent argument about how black people should be slaves or pedophillia is okay. If you start from certain principles you can logically prove just about anything, so saying "Well we've proven this logically" is nothing more than a flashy smoke screen to confuse the fact that your system of property rights is no more or less arbitrary than that of 12th century mongols. Moreover, every single bit of that logical facade falls completely away the moment it is put into any sort of practical effect. What do I mean? Well here is an example: "A new island is discovered in international waters. No government has any claim over it, nor has any government expressed any interest. Following your homesteading principles I go to this island and jam my dick into the soil until completion. How much of the island do I own." Now before you laugh off the hypothetical, please stop and think. There is now a twelve inch hole in the island (  ) so clearly I have transformed the dirt through my labor. Moreover the hole has at least one practical application, even if it is a sort of unpleasant and scratchy one. So how much of the island do I own? Do I own just the hole? Enough to lay on top of the hole? Do i get a few feet to each side so that I can roll over after I'm finished? Does that change if my body had compressed some tall grass down the first time I'd done so? Where do my property rights vis-à-vis my new ground fuckhole begin and end? If I don't get the whole island and a group of holefuckers decide to take the rest of it and prevent me from getting to my hole, do I have the authority to use violence to access my hole in the island?It is an absurd argument... except that it isn't. Walter Block has stated in numerous interviews and essays that he believes that Native Americans would only be entitled to between 1-2% of the current United States based on Lockean homesteading: "Second, it is by no means clear that the Indians are the rightful owners of anything like the entire United States. Under libertarian law, they could justly claim only those parts of the land that they homesteaded, or occupied, not hunted over. They owned those paths that they used to get from their winter to their summer places. This is based on the Lockean-Rothbardian-Hoppean homesteading theory. I estimate that they owned, in this way, at most 1 percent of the land in the United States." Where is he getting that number. His argument, as I understand it, is based around population figures and known tribal locations, but I think niggling on the details misses the forest for the trees. How did he come up with that number? At what point does he define "Well they owned this land, but not this land"? The answer is honestly really simple and it is the problem with your 'logically constructed system of property rights'. He guesses. There isn't any scientific way to determine who owns what based on a homesteading theory. To go back to my holefucking theory, there simply isn't any way to definitively determine what belongs to me as a result of vigorously humping the ground. And the moment you get rid of that certainty is the moment homesteading falls completely apart. Block was on the Sam Seder show and he was pressed on this issue. One of his weirder argument was that if we said "A tree planted every meter" would be homesteading, that it would need to be twice that on the western side of the Mississippi river because the land there is less valuable. To me that speaks volumes because not only is the geographic division pointless, but the tree every meter is arbitrary. And that is what people have more succinctly pointed out to you while I was at work today. Homesteading in practice is completely arbitrary, and that arbitrary nature effectively neuters any claim you put forth to say that it is some logical or moral system. Homesteading was a system designed to justify taking land away from native americans, and perpetuated today by libertarians who really, really want it to be something that it is not. Amusingly enough I actually think Mongol Based Economics wins in this sense at least. In MBE everything on earth belongs to the Khan and he gives it out as he sees fit, which does away with the awkwardness of your gently caress hole being too close to mine. All fuckholes belong to the Great Khan and he is generous enough to divide his bounty as he sees fit. quote:Through this theory, we can clear up the historical record about which currently existing property titles are justified and which are not. And there can or should be no statute of limitations on justice. If past theft can be proven, even hundreds of years in the past, and a descendant of a previous victim of the theft can be identified then the stolen property ought to be returned to the living descendant. This has profound implications for the descendants of black slaves and Native Americans as I have already stated. Reparations are owned to victims of past theft, but proof must be offered that the person to receive the redistributed property has a better claim to it than the current owner. According to libertarian property theory, a prior owner has a better claim than a later owner unless the prior owner voluntarily parted with the property through gift or contractual exchange. It doesn't matter if the current user of the property is not aware that they are in possession of stolen property, the rightful owner is the victim of the theft or the direct descendant. Amusingly enough Walter Block actually disagrees with you in his view of why we can't give native americans back their land. In his opinion posession is 9/10ths of the law, putting the significant burden of proof on the people least likely to be able to prove their case. Now I'm not saying that libertarianism would involve groups of violent thugs murdering others and killing every member of their extended family in an attempt to leave no one to come after them after the fact but... uh... yeah. Also does anyone else sort of find it creepy that Jrodefeld's argument here is almost verbatim Walter Block's argument as to why we should say gently caress slaves/indians/anyonewhocan'tprovideawrittencertificatethatsaystheywererobbed? quote:Now, imagine a case where the descendant of a black slave can prove that a plot of land in Louisiana is rightfully his since his ancestor was forced to toil on a plantation, and thus homesteaded that land. Justice, as Murray Rothbard has said, would have compelled the plantation owner to part with all his property and grant it to the freed slaves after emancipation. Since this didn't happen, the descendants of those slaves have a claim to a portion of that same property. If they can provide proof that their ancestor worked on a specific plantation, then they are owed a portion of land consistent with the labor their enslaved ancestors were forced to work on the land specified. But suppose that the black ancestor is now a rich actor and doesn't really need the land. And suppose that the current residents of the land are poor whites. Should this matter? Is the ancestor of the enslaved African man or woman less entitled to the property because of their current income vis a vis the holder of the property? Not in the least. The property is still more justly the black actor's than it is the poor white family who currently resides there. However, the black actor is absolutely at liberty to waive his rights to that property on account of his current fortune and the condition of the well-meaning people who unknowingly are in possession of stolen property. Or a deal could be worked out with the current occupants such that they pay a direct payment in reparations equal or less than the value of the land in question determined by negotiation between the two parties. I'm not actually going to address this stuff because other people have done a way better job on the topic than I could hope to, but the segue here is really weird in my opinion. I mean a couple of paragraphs up we were talking about why libertarian property rights are correct and now we're on about how they give reperations to former slaves except that lets be perfectly honest no former slave or their children would ever be able to satisfy the burden of proof required by a libertarian society. It really does amuse me how deep block (and jrod as a result) jump through the hoops of trying to say they'd be fair to the formerly exploited people while simultaneously positing a system where no one could possibly succeed at getting reperations. Very doublethink. quote:Now complicated problems like this and past grave injustices can only be remedied with reference to a sound theory over what constitutes just property rights. Some modern advocates of reparations for slavery would have it that the State tax all white inhabitants and distribute that money to all black inhabitants. But this would clearly be unjust. Many whites never had ancestors who had a thing to do with slavery and many blacks never had ancestors who were enslaved. Such a reckless politically-motivated redistribution would exacerbate injustice by depriving some people of just property and redistributing it to undeserving recipients. Other posters have pointed out that the advantages of slavery were so enormous that paying back african americans with a small stipend of land is frankly insulting, but I'm going to go one further and argue that in this case, people who benefit from modern american society should absolutely be giving reparations to the families of the victims, even if they were not themselves responsible. If you live in a society built on the corpses of an oppressed people you can't argue that because your grandpappy didn't own a slave you have no horse there. You benefit from their historic slavery even if you were never involved. The US likely would not be the world superpower it is today without having been a slave state, and the people who live here benefit from that. If we are accepting the argument (and we are) that the descendants of oppressed people can obtain reparations from the descendents of their oppressors it hardly seems difficult to accept that the state that supported that trade could be on the hook as well. Of course it is also worth mentioning that simply taxing everyone is more pragmatic. It is something that would have an actual positive effect on lives and serve as a good symbolic gesture. But Beep Boop My grandpa didn't own no slaves. quote:There must be a coherent and consistent theory of who has just claim over what scarce resource in order to sort out these complicated matters. That is why the theory of original appropriation is so important. Wait.. what!? Did we just come out of the history of slavery time warp back to the original train of thought? Where have I been for the last thirty six hours? Why am I covered in blood? Counterpoint: The original theory of appropriation is not important. Walter Block, the guy you are all but plagurizing agrees that this system has a basically zero percent chance of granting reparations to the people who were affected. In theory it might be great (its not) but in practice even libertarians admit that it will do essentially nothing. If it does nothing, then it is not important. Furthermore modern people are more than capable of making abstract if imperfect decisions on this issue. We could for example, determine that any person of slave descent is entitled to "whatever" and simply pass a law paying for "whatever" out of the public coffers. We can do that because property is a fiction that is determined by society, and as such society can distribute property as it wishes. The fact that we haven't is rather shameful, but it isn't impossible or immoral like you suggest. quote:So I'd like to ask again what is your theory of property rights? By what standard do you decide that a person or group of persons has rightful discretion and decision-making authority over a scarce resource? Like most people I don't think too much about it because I'm not autistic. That said... uh.. look at Bernie Sanders and its basically that. Maybe a slight bit more to the left on some issues. BONUS WALTER BLOCK AWFULNESS ROUND quote:The antidote to land theft, and some land was indeed stolen from the Indians, is reparations, or, better yet, return of the stolen land. Yes, indeed, "we" the current owners of this land must give it back when and where an heir to the original owners can be found. But possession is properly 9/10ths of the law. The present owner is always presumed to be the rightful owner. The burden of proof to the contrary falls upon he who would overturn such property titles. This applies to all claimants, throughout history, without exception. There is no statute of limitation on justice for the libertarian. However, the further back in time you go, especially if there was no written language, the harder it is to meet this burden of proof. In the case of the Indians, lacking a written language, and the theft having taken place so many years ago, there is little hope for much in the way of justified land reparations. In Canada, the courts have allowed the testimony of tribal elders to be determinative in such matters. But a proper court would dismiss this as mere hearsay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You're right. That is one reason why I would like to find some way to have a written debate with a few of you so the clutter and unwieldyness of these posts don't make communication difficult or impossible. I also don't have the time I'd like to spend debating these issues so when normal life intrudes, you think I am ducking out and avoiding tough questions. I'd much rather stick to a single issue at a time, hash that out for a reasonable length of time and then move on to another issue. Another problem is that everyone wants to have the last word and whoever gets the last word thinks that they "won" because the other person didn't respond. At a certain point, I will have said what I have to say on a topic and you all will have said what you have to say and we just have to leave it at that for the moment. Well you do tend to ignore, dodge, or handwave away the hardest questions. I've asked you some nasty ones and I myself was a libertarian when I was younger and stupider. I changed but so did libertarianism. Now libertarians are firmly in the territory of "far right Republicans but worse." The biggest challenge I repeatedly posed to you, that you ignored literally every time, is based on my own circumstances of birth. I was born to non-wealthy folks who divorced young. I spent much of my life up until now living in poverty. Most of it, really; nobody would hire me that payed much and it was only through a stroke of stupid luck that I was able to begin college. Now, I did not have parents that owned land. My parents would not or could not help me pay for school. I have issues that make me unfit for the military. Continuing, and finishing, college was made possible for me only because of the actions of the federal U.S. government. I have a mental illness that was untreated for years and only got treated because of state funding. If I were born rich those obstacles would not have been put in front of me. If I had parents that could afford to get me into college and get mental help my life would have been very different. As it stands, once again because of my situation, I do not have the resources to start a business. I have no choice but to sell my time to somebody else. If my parents were rich I would have far more resources at my disposal; I probably would have gone to a better private school and a better college. I would not have had to work through part of college and more importantly would have had access to better stuff to learn on. Tutors, better tools, etc. Put simply, I started at a disadvantage that was somewhat alleviated due to government action. I was actually given an opportunity I would never have otherwise had due to an accident of birth. How would a libertarian government deal with people like me? And don't just handwave it away by saying "well, charity." How would that work? You talk about  MEN WITH GUNS holding guns to peoples' heads to make them pay taxes to give opportunities to people like me as if that were wrong but the other side of it was that people were withholding the things I needed to survive (as in, money to buy food and shelter with) unless I was willing to labor to make others wealthier. Once again I had no choice but to sell my time to others and that was often at a severe disadvantage. I would work hours off the clock or be at risk of losing my job.How does libertarianism answer the problem of men with money telling men without money that they must make the men with money richer or be starved to death? I'll give you a hint: it loving doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Many of them do, sure. "Property", as I am using it, refers only to rules which determine who has the right to control what scarce resource. The "rules" of Marxism thus are a type of property right. I'd strongly argue that they are incorrect and incoherent, but they are a system of property rights nonetheless. The surplus property of the more well off is more justly the property of the less well off according to the theory. We are really arguing over definitions. You are disputing my characterization of Marxism as having a theory of property rights, but we are speaking about the same thing regardless. EvanSchenck posted:Notice that we suddenly went from "private property rights" to " I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If I feel that coercive taxation is immoral and I peacefully choose to not pay the extortion fee to the State, violence will be used against me. I will be thrown into a cage for a long time. This is okay with all of you because you have a concept of property rights which is that agents of the State own the product of my labor and permit me to keep whatever portion of my income that they legislate. It is not at all "unambiguous" that public goods such as roads and streetlights are owned by "society". Who is "society"? Do you own a portion of the road and streetlight in front of my house? You don't benefit from it. Your taxes didn't go to fund it either. More reasonably, it could be said that the property right of the road and streetlights in my neighborhood can and should be considered jointly "owned" by the people who live in that neighborhood but not anyone else. And I would argue that such ownership should be set up through contract on the free market without any coercive taxation or State involvement whatsoever. A neighborhood association can form voluntarily and people who move in to a neighborhood can be asked to sign a contract which obligates them to pay a small fee to maintain the roads, streetlights and basic services. This is not a State, since all contracts are voluntary. EvanSchenck posted:He retreated to abstraction because this point is actually banal to the point of being meaningless. As you say, equitable distribution of scarce resources is a universal problem, which will be addressed by any ideology or philosophy that proposes a system for living in the world. Where everyone disagrees with you, Jrod, is in your support for arguably the worst, least efficient, and most inequitable such system. Libertarian is incredibly bad at protecting and distributing scarce resources, it has no mechanism for either besides the hope that things will work out just because ... You can't simply assert that. You have to defend these assertions. In what ways are private property rights based on original appropriation the "worst", least efficient and most inequitable? In the first place, there is no "distribution" of scarce resources. That is an incorrect, imprecise term. People ought to own what they pluck out of nature and transform with their labor and they are free to exchange what they homestead with the property homesteaded from others. This system provides the most clear rules for who has the right to determine the use of what scarce resource. All competing systems are subject to imprecision, arbitrariness, political whim, democratic deliberation which causes inefficiency in the use of scarce resources and many other problems besides. The problem of how to defend those property rights and arbitrate disputes is not different from any competing system. You have a police force, either voluntarily funded or provided by a minimal State, and a court system. There is no unique problem in enforcing the libertarian concept of private property rights. In fact, the laws are made all the more clear and policing of crime would be much more efficient since the property rights violator would be much more clearly identified given the clarity of libertarian law. So your point that it would be "inefficient" does not stand up to scrutiny. EvanSchenck posted:Homesteading is a nonsense argument and it is obviously not the original way that property is acquired, because the idea of exclusive private property in the sense that libertarians use is pretty clearly only a few hundred years old. It was invented at a point in history when economic conditions made it desirable to social elites. That is, when European colonists in North America desired land held by Native Americans, they invented the idea of homesteading while at the same time pretending that the Native Americans did not qualify. Partly they did this by pretending that the Native Americans were not practicing agriculture, which was ridiculous. Another practice was defining other activities or relationships to the land practiced by the Native Americans as not counting for the purposes of determining property. e.g. Native Americans set aside and maintained game preserves for hunting, which doesn't count because it's not agriculture; e.g. Native Americans held farmland communally, which doesn't count because it's not private property. The only way that homesteading was NOT the original way that property was acquired is if you assume that there was never an original user of scare resources, which is of course ludicrous. Of course the academic concept of homesteading was not understood but original appropriation obviously DID occur. In early human civilization as hunter gatherers living at a subsistence level, humans had no real concept of private property nor was one needed since people never produced enough to have any goods long enough to need protection. However, when primitive civilizations began to form, a division of labor became necessary for humans to produce more. This allowed for capital to begin to form, a surplus in excess of the consumptive needs to those people. Thus property rights were needed. Primitive tribes would usually look to a respected elder to adjudicate disputes that arose. These were the first "courts" and early law came into existence simply by discovering the norms that were needed for human development and flourishing. For example, surplus capital needed to be protected in some way from theft or else the incentive to produce it would be gone and the entire tribe would suffer. Early money came into existence when barter became impractical and a medium of exchange was needed to facilitate a growing economy. Notice that nothing like a "State" came into existence until later in human society. The primitive tribe was not at all akin to a primitive State since the rule-setters and arbitrators were usually voluntarily agreed upon by the others. On the other hand, there were indeed violent people who rose to prominence simply due to their superior physical strength and others were simply afraid or them. But such early tribes had trouble making any sort of development because they were engaged in violence which precluded the peaceful production and division of labor, not to mention the establishment of fair laws or norms. Thus a general preference for voluntarism was required for the primitive hunter gatherer tribe to develop. States, by definition, require a productive economy to fund itself off of. Coercive taxation is a feature of a State which cannot exist without a previously existing market economy and division of labor, no matter how primitive. In short, I think you are wrong. Even without the academic concept of homesteading, early rules or norms gave preference to the first user of a scarce resource as the better person to determine its use. EvanSchenck posted:
First of all, I love Adventure Time. It is one of my guilty pleasures, though I'm not sure why I should feel guilty about watching and liking it. Yes, there are other principles of property such as the ones you outlined. But you are completely wrong if you think that the powerful in society ever seriously adopted and promoted the libertarian theory of private property. And no one has an "unlimited" right to private property. They have a right to determine the use of their scarce resources only until their actions cause an invasion of the borders of someone else's private property, which includes their physical bodies. Pollution is one such thing that would be heavily regulated under libertarian law since it would almost certainly cause an unwanted invasion of others property boundaries. So it is not unlimited, but heavily regulated. It is the peaceful use of ones property, activities that do NOT cause harm to others, that people ought to be free to do without any prior restraint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Finally, a tiring aspect of debating with leftists is the unfounded assumption that defenders of the market economy or opponents of the State are not merely mistaken, but are fundamentally immoral people. Your assumption that I lack any empathy is entirely illustrative of that. I assume that most of you are generally good people who care about others but are merely mistaken and choose the wrong means to achieve the desired ends. The goal for the libertarian is a prosperous society where the poor are taken care of, humans can achieve their fullest potential, conflict is minimized, injustice is limited to the greatest possible extent, and peaceful productivity and cooperation replace politics and conflict. We may be wrong about this, but don't baselessly assert that we lack empathy, or have bad intent. The goals we seek are similar in the sense that we want to best outcomes for our neighbor, for the disadvantaged, and for society in general. We have different ideas about how to best achieve such outcomes. Now, if you are sincere in your desire for the best outcomes, then you would be open to changing your beliefs if it were to be demonstrated to you that, say, free market libertarianism lifted far more people out of poverty and created general prosperity far better than socialism and central-planning, correct? Don't you routinely claim your political opponents to be thugs with guns who will come and violently oppress you? I mean I know I can go into the last thread if not this very thread and find an instance of you saying something along the lines of "Put down the gun" with which you portray every single 'statist' as a person actively assaulting you by wanting universal medical care. You do not have a high horse to sit upon here my friend. As for the second bolded sentence, just imagine I posted the expanding ironicat.gif. I don't think I've ever seen you change an opinion even in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Caros posted:... Caros, you're saying that he's cribbing off of Walter Block, but what his spiel reminded me most of is this awful poo poo by Triple-H: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/ Or could it be that they all just copy each other endlessly...?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
My ancestors
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Caros posted:Don't you routinely claim your political opponents to be thugs with guns who will come and violently oppress you? I mean I know I can go into the last thread if not this very thread and find an instance of you saying something along the lines of "Put down the gun" with which you portray every single 'statist' as a person actively assaulting you by wanting universal medical care. You do not have a high horse to sit upon here my friend. I've also noticed an increasing level of tone arguments coming from libertarians these days. Often packaged with "Surely you're open and reasonable to consider these ideas aren't you?" as if they were discussing trade theory in the old smoke room and not people's right to exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Okay. Into the second glass of rum so I'm probably going to be getting a little meaner. Bear with me guys. Also I think I need to up my slams for the upcoming post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Y0hCjQX_M Good. jrodefeld posted:It's funny what you guys grasp onto and hammer away at me about. By citing in passing the Cato study on economic freedom in different nations throughout the world, you choose to pick out a couple entries on the the list and cite the various ways in which those nations are NOT free and demand that I answer for their failings and further assert that somehow I am claiming that the United States ought to emulate the policies of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Okay I'm going to touch on the metrics of your list down below, but I really need to touch on this first. In what loving bizzaro world is being property not something that impacts your economic freedom? I'm trying not to parse too much because I know what you are getting at. This is a 'study' that 'measures' economic freedom for society as a whole. As such it doesn't look at individual liberties or the effects thereof. And I get that. Apart from some (relative) niche issues, your decision to bang or not bang other guys doesn't really factor into your ability to start a business, or buy a house etc. I get that. But slavery? According to Walter Block the only problem with slavery was the lack of ability to choose who you interact with, specifically the lack of ability to choose not to 'transact' with your owner. Other than that it was picking cotton. Slavery is the total ownership of your person and lack of freedom which by necessity means a total loss of economic freedom as well. And you don't think that even merits a spot on this 'study'? The total lack of economic freedom of a huge fraction of the population of the country in question doesn't merit anything? Qatar is one of the two countries we are giving you poo poo about. They have 1.2 million foreign workers which is 94% of their labor force. There are about four foreign workers for every actual citizen of Qatar and the Human Rights Watch says they live in "Near-feudal conditions that are effectively forced labor". You cannot leave Qatar without your sponsor's (owner's) permission. Employer consent is required to change jobs, get a licence, rent a home, open a bank account you name it. Companies will frequently simply refuse to release you once your work period is over, leaving you with the choice of starving to death or working for them. Qatar's population is only 2.16 million. Over half their population is living in what is described as "Forced Labor" "Modern day slavery" or "Fundamentally a slave state" by various groups. Over half their population is comprised of slaves and that doesn't even count as a demerit on the subject of economic freedom? Are you seriously going to keep defending this Jrodefeld? I know other posters have mentioned that you should just admit you were wrong and shuffle along, and I really hope after reading my post you do so. I mean I know what happened, you got linked to the 'study' from somewhere else, you gave it a cursory look and you posted it here. You've admitted you knew nothing of Qatar or the UAE so it is a forgivable mistake. But doubling down on it and trying to act like there is nothing dishonest about a study that measures economic freedom rating Qatar and the UAE above the US is absurd. They are literal slave states where half their population can't open a bank account without their owner's permission and you think that is just a social issue and not an economic one? Come the gently caress on Jrod, just own up. jrodefeld posted:Okay, let's suppose you are a Marxist. I give you a list of the following countries: United States, Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, Mauritius, . You provided the list. No one gave it to you. You provided it and said "Look at how great economic freedom is" without doing a cursory examination of the study. Might I recommend in the future you google the goddamn study before you link it, because I'm actually embarrassed for you. quote:These are the metrics used to judge the various countries: This is going to take a while but I want to point out precisely what the problem with your study is. I mean we've talked about how retarded it is that it doesn't even acknowledge massive systemic labor abuse as something that affects economic freedom, but I want to dig deeper than that and show you why using a study like this is loving idiotic. The short answer I suppose, would simply be to say that it is as useful as a ranking of the top ten best robot anime from Japan (Gundam for life bitches). That is to say, the study, while presented in a quasi-data form is absolutely meaningless. To start with, Economic Freedom. What is that? What even IS that? No, really. What is it? Economic freedom is a totally nebulous concept, much like a lot of the things you treat as though they are solid as stone. As i'm going through this list I'm going to be more specific, but looking at it in full view you have to really ask the question of what it even is. Cato certainly has a view on what it is, but I feel it needs to be pointed out that Cato is a think tank founded by Charles Koch for the purpose of espousing libertarian ideas. Any objective list like this is going to be biased, but frankly it really shows in this one more than many others. The slave thing is just one example, and what I feel needs to be remembered when you look at a document like this is that it is propaganda rather than fact. There is no science here, just a bunch of countries ranked in an order that happens to go "Hey look, the countries we wanted to put at the top of the list to make our point ended up at the top of the list. Lets begin. The 'study' is divided into five sections. Each of those five sections is divided into components which have sub-components at times. Countries are rated (arbitrarily) 0-10 on each component which goes to the main section which goes to the overall score. Max score is 50, minimal score is zero. quote:1. Size of Government Government Consumption is apparently something that makes people less free. Also transfers and subsudies. Also Government enterprises. What this means in essence is that the more government spending you have then the less economically free by Cato's standards your country is. Thus if your government spends money on Social Security that keeps millions out of poverty your country is less economically free (to die I guess?) The big winner here is the Top marginal tax rate. I know at least one person commented on how stupid this was but I want to anyways. In the US the top marginal rate affects about 5% of the population. Now stop and think about that for a second. In a study that claims to talk about the economic freedom of a country the only tax rate they look at is the tax rate of the richest 5% of people in that country. Sure there is some carryover since the lower brackets have to be... well... lower, but tax law is very complicated and a country with a 40% top rate might have a bottom rate of 30 or it might have one of 10. These are huge differences that affect the majority of people but the only ones they care about are the top earners. Interesting no? quote:2. Legal System and Property Rights So there is a lot here. Some of these actually make sense, some don't. I'd like to point out that having your military interfering with your rule of law and politics is less impactful on the Economic Freedom of your country than having a high top marginal tax rate. Priorities! I think my favorite here is "Business costs of crime" because it encapsulates a lot of what I'm going to point out later. Hold that thought. quote:3. Sound Money Again as another poster mentioned, they look here at both standard deviation and current deviation for inflation. One of these is important, the other... a lot less so to be honest. Also Freedom to own foreign currency is more important than living in a military Junta when it comes to economic freedom. I also think it is pretty telling that an entire section of this is dedicated to 'Sound Money'. While there is something to be said for hyperinflation wrecking economic freedom I don't think typical inflation really affects it at all. This category, of all the others seems the most arbitrary to me. quote:4. Freedom to Trade Internationally The Black Market exchange rate is more important than living in a Military Junta. The rest of this, again, is things that don't matter particularly to the average citizen, but we will get to that. quote:5. Regulation REGULATION BAD! HULK SMASH! Having hours regulations, mandated severance pay, minimum wage, child labor laws etc all impact economic freedom poorly. Yeah... I'm gonna go to closing since you get the point. Frankly I think I've figured out why they don't care about slavery. When Cato talks about 'Economic Freedom' they aren't talking about people. This isn't a study that determines that the economic freedom for your average person in the US is this high, and this high in sweden. No, this is a study that just looks at business as an amorphous blob. Your country allows slavery? Great you'd actually score higher on the 5th section because that means you have no labor laws to speak of. The Qatar doesn't rank high on the list in spite of slavery, they rank that high because of it, or rather because they have followed the dictates of Cato and eliminated everything that would get in the way of said slavery. I do hope you see why people are disgusted at your source material. I just want to point out that the fraser institute is a national joke in Canada. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of big business masquerading as a think tank. The fact that you take anything they say at face value says volumes. quote:I personally don't know a thing about the United Arab Emirates. Maybe the methodology was flawed and even when restricting the parameters to simply economic freedom, the United Arab Emirates don't deserve to be anywhere near the top 10. I can't tell you that. But if you think that ANY libertarian anywhere supports slavery in any form, you are either a fool or a malevolent and dishonest person who prefers character assassination to thoughtful critiques. The problem is that there isn't any methodology. Also what you are doing here is no true libertarianism. Walter Block supports slavery. The Cato institute supports slavery. The particular sect you ascribe to might not, but you are not all libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know how I could be any more loving clear. Libertarians absolutely, positively and without any reservations oppose all forms of coercive associations of which slavery is the most egregious. I did. They were in the thirty five pages you skipped over. For further information go up one post where you will see how I point out that talking at all about that list is utterly pointless because it is a made up thing. Also the reason that North Korea is in abysmal poverty is that they are an international pariah state ruled by a series of mad dictators. You can't seriously be arguing that the only thing wrong with them is bad economic policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The only way that homesteading was NOT the original way that property was acquired is if you assume that there was never an original user of scare resources, which is of course ludicrous. Of course the academic concept of homesteading was not understood but original appropriation obviously DID occur. In early human civilization as hunter gatherers living at a subsistence level, humans had no real concept of private property nor was one needed since people never produced enough to have any goods long enough to need protection. However, when primitive civilizations began to form, a division of labor became necessary for humans to produce more. This allowed for capital to begin to form, a surplus in excess of the consumptive needs to those people. Thus property rights were needed. Primitive tribes would usually look to a respected elder to adjudicate disputes that arose. These were the first "courts" and early law came into existence simply by discovering the norms that were needed for human development and flourishing. For example, surplus capital needed to be protected in some way from theft or else the incentive to produce it would be gone and the entire tribe would suffer. Early money came into existence when barter became impractical and a medium of exchange was needed to facilitate a growing economy. I don't know enough about ancient history and anthropology to say for sure that all of this is a bullshit fairy-tale, but I know enough to say that some of it is bullshit for various reasons. How about you go ahead and cite something that backs this up? I'll even go first and point out the claim I have put in bold is nonsense: there were no "barter economies," but there were economies mediated by reckonings of debt and later by cash money. quote:Notice that nothing like a "State" came into existence until later in human society. The primitive tribe was not at all akin to a primitive State since the rule-setters and arbitrators were usually voluntarily agreed upon by the others. Congrats on valorizing the moral basis of the representative democratic state! GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Jrode, I want to diverge from libertarianism, racism and slavery or whatever for a moment and talk about the philosophy of philosophy. In the abstract, I absolutely agree with everything you've written here. I've made mistakes in all the time I've posted here. That is probably inevitable when posting as much as I do and I shouldn't be afraid to admit when I've made an error. However, in this particular case I think the amount of criticism I've received is really unfounded. And I believe the conclusion that some have drawn that libertarians must not care about slavery is patently absurd. I will freely admit that I don't know too much about the policies of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. I have heard a few things about the human rights abuses that take place in those two nations, but I don't know enough in depth to discuss them. However, I'd be more than happy to be educated on the issue of slavery in those two particular countries. I don't know the degree to which that is occurring, what exactly is meant by the term "slavery". I am assuming we are speaking about actual chattel slavery, human beings being sold as property? Or are you referring to workers who don't have enough Union rights vis a vis their employers but are not forced to associate with them (i.e. they can quit their jobs)? I have been aware of the different studies put out by different libertarian groups regarding the degree of economic liberty in the different nations of the world and I merely wanted to cite one such example to illustrate a particular point about wealth creation vis a vis economic liberty and the rising living standards that generally result. I frankly don't know enough about the methodology of this particular Cato study to either defend it or denounce it in its entirety. From what I have read, I understand that this particular study is weighted in support of certain criteria. That hardly means that other very important liberty issues that fall outside of the scope of this particular study are somehow unimportant or irrelevant to libertarians as has been asserted. It would be like if a libertarian group put out a study on the effects of liberal policies on drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands and someone started criticizing them for their omission of the various non-libertarian and anti-liberty policies that those countries have. "If opposition to the welfare state and opposition to coercive taxation is so important to libertarians, how could you omit those things from your study of drug and prostitution policy in the Netherlands?" It's just beyond the scope of that particular study. Your issue with Qatar is less a relevant issue in regards to the Cato list because Qatar was ranked number 13. Still high, all things considered, but given the anti-liberty stance of most nations in the world, you could easily say that all nations outside the top 10 are pretty non-libertarian in most respects. The bigger issue is the United Arab Emirates which is ranked number 5. Given what I have read about the United Arab Emirates, you would have to conclude that this study is weighted almost entirely in favor of specific economic criteria. Their legal system is heavily influenced by Sharia law after all. Interestingly a similar study by Heritage, the United Arab Emirates is ranked number 25 and Qatar is ranked number 32. This is their top 10: 1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. New Zealand 4. Australia 5. Switzerland 6. Canada 7. Chile 8. Estonia 9. Ireland 10. Mauritius I would probably assume that this top 10 would be more to your liking? Many of these countries are similar to those ranked on the Cato study, but the offending two countries are nowhere in the top 20. Perhaps they weighted their study in a more equitable manner which took a broader view of liberty in general? If this better illustrates the point I was attempting to make, fine. The larger point is that the degree of economic freedom and market liberalization is heavily correlated with the average living standards, the creation of a healthy middle class and the alleviation of poverty. Now, I'm sure you could go through and pick out even some of these countries and chastise me about how they deviate from libertarian principles in one way or another. But I think that would be an unfair point because no one is claiming that they are models for libertarian society. The only claim being offered is that these are examples of relatively free economies where entrepreneurs can start businesses easily, property rights are generally respected, the currencies are fairly stable and they come closer to laissez-faire than other nations. That is the only claim being offered. I am absolutely NOT trying to avoid responsibility for making an error. I would absolutely admit to being wrong if I thought that the critique being levied against me was fair. The problem is that I'd bet none of you actually took the time to read the study, see what the scope and intent of the study was and what criteria was used. Instead the inclusion of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in the top 20 prompted multiple posters to make the assertion that this proves libertarians don't care about slavery. If there is ANYTHING libertarians care about it's slavery! This is abundantly clear if you read ANY of the literature. In fact, it could be argued that libertarians are the only principled opponents of slavery. Only through a consistent application of the principle of self-ownership can a person be truly and completely opposed to slavery. Anyway, I really hope we've exhausted this particular topic for now. If it makes anyone feel better, you can refer to the Heritage rankings I listed above rather than the Cato rankings. I do take your larger point and I won't hesitate to admit to being wrong, or not understanding something properly when I am critiqued fairly. If I could ask the authors of the Cato study a question, I'd definitely ask "why did you guys rank the United Arab Emirates and Qatar so high on the list given their history of human rights abuses? Aren't these abuses related to economic liberty?" I think that would be an entirely fair question, especially given the discrepancy between the Cato study and the Heritage study regarding those two countries. I can speculate as to what they would likely say, but without knowing more I am not going to denounce the study and say I made a horrible, terrible mistake in citing it. I think this is fair, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:38
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In the abstract, I absolutely agree with everything you've written here. I've made mistakes in all the time I've posted here. That is probably inevitable when posting as much as I do and I shouldn't be afraid to admit when I've made an error. On the contrary, at least one prominent Libertarian philosopher who.you've cited, Walter Block, is in favor of slavery. Indeed, the logic which he uses is one you should address if you want people.to take your claim that Libertarianism is inherently antislavery seriously, rather than understanding it as the last act of a desperate man.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
So (some) libertarians are against slavery but in support of removing all government laws and safeguards that protect people from companies that might seek to establish slavery. Company script, workhouses, child labour, all fair game, eliminate the 40 hour work week, eliminate minimum wage and all safety and environmental obligations, allow people to starve in the street and deny them basic health care, all acceptable prepositions but we draw the line at slavery because that's a bridge too far! So free! Such economic freedom!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Top 2 are Hong Kong and Singapore again, which is still hilarious albeit for non-slavery related reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I don't know enough about ancient history and anthropology to say for sure that all of this is a bullshit fairy-tale, but I know enough to say that some of it is bullshit for various reasons. How about you go ahead and cite something that backs this up? I'll even go first and point out the claim I have put in bold is nonsense: there were no "barter economies," but there were economies mediated by reckonings of debt and later by cash money. Yeah, barter when it did occur was between strangers or people hostile to each other. Humans got on without money until about 600 B.C. on credit systems with varying levels of formality. We had taxes and rents before we had money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Serrath posted:So (some) libertarians are against slavery but in support of removing all government laws and safeguards that protect people from companies that might seek to establish slavery. You see, slavery is not a problem. But if the government tries to regulate it, then that... is the real... sla- hm. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
 "Here is a Cato freedom study that says what I want it to!" "There are two slave states they rank as more free than the USA, and also Cato is a garbage organization for idiots." "Oh, okay. Here's a Heritage study instead! Those slave states are only in the top quintile this time!"Never not post, JRod, you magnificent imbecile. Also it would be cool if you could link that second study too, so we can mock you for their methodology and results like we did for the last one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
For the record, I submit to the European feudal Catholic system of property rights, which is that all land is rightfully owned by the sovreign via his ordination by to pope or his representative via the apostle Peter via Jesus thus ultimately stemming from God, who mixed his labor with all creation by making it. Said king may devolve ownership to a vassal who may do the same, and those vassals may lease property and collect rents or sell the rights to collect rents to whoever. As such, all of the United States rightfully belongs to Philipe the VI, King of Spain, as we are beyond the Line of Tordesillas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
quote:I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If I feel that coercive taxation is immoral and I peacefully choose to not pay the extortion fee to the State, violence will be used against me. I will be thrown into a cage for a long time. This is okay with all of you because you have a concept of property rights which is that agents of the State own the product of my labor and permit me to keep whatever portion of my income that they legislate. It is not at all "unambiguous" that public goods such as roads and streetlights are owned by "society". Who is "society"? Do you own a portion of the road and streetlight in front of my house? You don't benefit from it. Your taxes didn't go to fund it either. More reasonably, it could be said that the property right of the road and streetlights in my neighborhood can and should be considered jointly "owned" by the people who live in that neighborhood but not anyone else. And I would argue that such ownership should be set up through contract on the free market without any coercive taxation or State involvement whatsoever. A neighborhood association can form voluntarily and people who move in to a neighborhood can be asked to sign a contract which obligates them to pay a small fee to maintain the roads, streetlights and basic services. This is not a State, since all contracts are voluntary. Hey remember when you said not long ago that you were pissed off at people mischaracterizing libertarians as villains? That said your argument is faulty. Take your 'jointly owned' road for example, that doesn't work because your jointly owned road paid for by your local taxes is still a publicly owned road. I can drive all the way across country, down into your neighborhood and drive up and down that road to my hearts content and you can't tell me to stop because the road belongs to everyone and everyone agrees on its usage. Moreover the latter part of the paragraph points out the big blinking glaring flaw with your argument. You ask them to help pay for the roads via contract. So what happens when they say no? Do they not get to drive on the roads to their new house? Well that isn't very loving voluntary is it, its coercive because they can either sign your contract or not. If they don't then what about other people who want to drive into your neighborhood? If i drive down to visit a friend do I have to pay a toll when I enter Jrodefeldville? Do you have any idea how incredibly inconvenient and impractical this starts getting once you realize that every single road system has to be paid for this way? quote:You can't simply assert that. You have to defend these assertions. In what ways are private property rights based on original appropriation the "worst", least efficient and most inequitable? In the first place, there is no "distribution" of scarce resources. That is an incorrect, imprecise term. People ought to own what they pluck out of nature and transform with their labor and they are free to exchange what they homestead with the property homesteaded from others. This system provides the most clear rules for who has the right to determine the use of what scarce resource. All competing systems are subject to imprecision, arbitrariness, political whim, democratic deliberation which causes inefficiency in the use of scarce resources and many other problems besides. Because you never simply assert things without backing them up.  As I've pointed out your system stops providing clear rules the moment it actually gets into practice with homesteading. Yes it is very practical when you're talking about people buying and selling things everyone already agrees they own, but that system you are describing isn't any different from the one we have now. The only part of your system that is at all different is homesteading, and homesteading is a chaotic mess that essentially boils down to "I own this because I said so and I have enough people to back up my agreement." Incidentally this is actually not at all dissimilar from how actual property rights developed in the real world, which is to say that the guy with the biggest stick said "Fight me IRL if you want this land" and no one argued, at which point he (the government) started giving it away. Your system is subject to imprecision, arbitrariness, social whim and democratic deliberation. If you want a real system that gets rid of this you want Mongol Based Economics. The only imprecision there is whether or not there is a force that can stand against the Khan and deny his right to take what is already his. quote:The problem of how to defend those property rights and arbitrate disputes is not different from any competing system. You have a police force, either voluntarily funded or provided by a minimal State, and a court system. There is no unique problem in enforcing the libertarian concept of private property rights. In fact, the laws are made all the more clear and policing of crime would be much more efficient since the property rights violator would be much more clearly identified given the clarity of libertarian law. So your point that it would be "inefficient" does not stand up to scrutiny. Yeah because nothing could go wrong with voluntary policing. That said... how exactly would policing be made clear. Because I'm honestly drawing a blank. You've already admitted previously in this post that homesteading is basically a non-starter at this point. There isn't any homesteading going on anymore because everything is already owned, so the only difference between your system and the current system is that if you can point to theft generations ago you can argue for reappropriation in the current day. I mean, if you steal my bike in liberland its no different from if you steal my bike in the current US. Everyone already knows who owns what in our current system, that isn't going to change and I'm really curious why you think it would. quote:The only way that homesteading was NOT the original way that property was acquired is if you assume that there was never an original user of scare resources, which is of course ludicrous. Of course the academic concept of homesteading was not understood but original appropriation obviously DID occur. In early human civilization as hunter gatherers living at a subsistence level, humans had no real concept of private property nor was one needed since people never produced enough to have any goods long enough to need protection. However, when primitive civilizations began to form, a division of labor became necessary for humans to produce more. This allowed for capital to begin to form, a surplus in excess of the consumptive needs to those people. Thus property rights were needed. Primitive tribes would usually look to a respected elder to adjudicate disputes that arose. These were the first "courts" and early law came into existence simply by discovering the norms that were needed for human development and flourishing. For example, surplus capital needed to be protected in some way from theft or else the incentive to produce it would be gone and the entire tribe would suffer. Early money came into existence when barter became impractical and a medium of exchange was needed to facilitate a growing economy. In those 35 pages you skipped you'll find a bunch of people debunking this as a fairy tale. The short version is that primitive tribes were largely communal and private property as a concept didn't develop until far, far later. Now if you can homestead as a group then... great I guess, you just described the taking of the united states where a bunch of groups moved over together and laid claim to America, but that has little or nothing to do with your argument where everything must be owned by an individual. quote:Notice that nothing like a "State" came into existence until later in human society. The primitive tribe was not at all akin to a primitive State since the rule-setters and arbitrators were usually voluntarily agreed upon by the others. On the other hand, there were indeed violent people who rose to prominence simply due to their superior physical strength and others were simply afraid or them. But such early tribes had trouble making any sort of development because they were engaged in violence which precluded the peaceful production and division of labor, not to mention the establishment of fair laws or norms. Thus a general preference for voluntarism was required for the primitive hunter gatherer tribe to develop. :shhh: Modern states are agreed upon by the people who live in them too by a social contract. Also no. There are TONS of examples of early human civilizations that basically worked at the whim of a strongman or small group of strongmen. We can see this behavior in primates as well. But at this point I'm getting bored of arguing with you. quote:States, by definition, require a productive economy to fund itself off of. Coercive taxation is a feature of a State which cannot exist without a previously existing market economy and division of labor, no matter how primitive. Capitalism couldn't have existed without the communal living of early humans. Your point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
So Jrod, just answer me this question: Are you going to continue to ignore my posts? Ignoring posts like my last one are the reason why people accuse you of being an imbecile that is bad at arguing. What you're failing to realize is that people like me are the ones you need to convince as we have a lot to lose as a class. In fact the stuff in the post I made is exactly why I quit being a libertarian and ex-libertarians are people you should not be ignoring as we're the ones that are going to come out most strongly against your precious movement. Largely because we've been inside and saw how much of a poo poo fest it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah, barter when it did occur was between strangers or people hostile to each other. Humans got on without money until about 600 B.C. on credit systems with varying levels of formality. We had taxes and rents before we had money. I think jrod should read David Graeber, who is an anarchist who hates state regulations and restrictions and initiatory violence just like him (note: actually not at all like him)! It would be a mind-expanding experience, in any case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I think jrod should read David Graeber, who is an anarchist who hates state regulations and restrictions and initiatory violence just like him (note: actually not at all like him)! It would be a mind-expanding experience, in any case. Not just jrod. Debt: the First 5000 Years is a great book and anyone who actually gives a poo poo about theories of property should read it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Hi, jrodefeld. Since you've skipped all the pages where you weren't here, then you obviously didn't see my first few posts here. I'm a new comer and a "conservative in political rehab" let's say for now. I apologize for lack of exact quotes, but you spewed a lot of junk that's hard to hunt down for my piecemeal response, so please forgive me. jrodefeld posted:Now complicated problems like this and past grave injustices can only be remedied with reference to a sound theory over what constitutes just property rights. Some modern advocates of reparations for slavery would have it that the State tax all white inhabitants and distribute that money to all black inhabitants. But this would clearly be unjust. Many whites never had ancestors who had a thing to do with slavery and many blacks never had ancestors who were enslaved. Such a reckless politically-motivated redistribution would exacerbate injustice by depriving some people of just property and redistributing it to undeserving recipients. I honestly use to believe this, too, as this exact situation does apply to me. On my mother's side, none of my ancestors lived in the United States prior to 1912, and were from certain waves of European immigrants who were initially looked down upon. On my father's side, my ancestors were poor Hispanic migrant farmers for the most part, who have lived in Texas since before it was a nation. No slave-owning blood in my veins. However, if we are to talk about justice, we must look at the one institution most responsible for slavery, that being the State. If the State is responsible for slavery, which it is, then it must be made to pay the penalty for it, and that penalty must be significant - not merely symbolic, or in the case of Libertarianism, hidden behind an impossible maze of bureaucracy purposely set against the ones who have suffered the injustice. As others have pointed out, the stain of slavery is so pervasive that there is no white cloth in our nation. We have all either benefited or suffered from it, and if our State is the representation of we the people, and our state is guilty of these crimes, then we the people are guilty of these crimes, and we must satisfy this injustice. We inherit sin from our forefathers, and if we dare to say that the founders of the USA are our forefathers, then we have inherited this great sin, regardless if we actually have a genealogical connection to the crime. We have a political connection by choosing to be a citizen of the USA, and choosing to be represented by the USA, and choosing to benefit from your status as a citizen. And yes, you do choose to be a citizen here. The USA is a free nation, if you don't like the representation, either change it, or GTFO. jrodefeld posted:Furthermore, rights such as the right to speech don't exist outside of property rights. For example, you are not permitted to come into my living room and say whatever you wish. If you enter my home, you are obligated to abide by my rules or you will have to leave. That means that I can state that you are NOT permitted to say certain things while on my property. You cannot, for example, swear at my family and be rude and obnoxious. You don't have an unlimited freedom of speech anywhere you go. On your own property, you may say anything you wish however. At any venue where you are invited and permitted to speak freely, you can disseminate any information or personal views without any problem. But you must either own the property or get permission from the owner of the property that the speech you make is permissible. That is what is meant by the statement that human rights equal property rights. This whole section, where you reject the freedom of speech? This is enough to make me reject Libertariansim wholesale. If everything is privately owned in Libertarian land, and I cannot exercise my right to free speech anywhere except on my own property or where I'm "invited" to; then freedom of speech does not exist. If basic human rights can be rejected outright based on the nebulous ideas of "property rights", then I want no part of your hosed up system. If property rights trump human rights, go get stuffed. poo poo like this invites the worse kind of nit picking assholery. If I shout "gently caress LIBERTARIANS!!!" while on my property, but loud enough that you can here it in your "profanity free zone", did I agress you? Are you entitled to compensation? In other words, if you're putting the idea of property rights over something as basic as free speech, your political ideology is hosed and you're hosed, and you seriously need to examine yourself. Now onto this: jrodefeld posted:For the record, the Cato Institute is far from my favorite libertarian think tank. Citing this study doesn't amount to a ringing endorsement of Cato or all of the writers there. But I think this list is pretty accurate judged on the whole. Look at the top 20 countries listed and compare them to the bottom 20 and you'd be hard pressed to argue that the top 20 are not much more economically free and prosperous than the bottom 20. Other libertarian organizations have released similar lists that rank different nations according to different libertarian criteria. Okay, I'm taking your challenge. I'm just going to skim what I know about these nations, because I've got a lunch date with some friends at a new restaurant in about half an hour. Top 20 from that .pdf: 1. Hong Kong - Government Housing, UHC, lots of other social benefits. Uber-rich because it's a loving strategic port. PRC is constantly cracking down on free speech, and has completely gutted their police force and replaced it with mostly cops from the mainland, or HKers that are pro-PRC. Seriously, read the Politically Loaded Maps thread to get some interesting insight onto why the UK held onto this colony as long as it did. 2. Singapore - City-state that has the same strategic advantages as Hong Kong and a burgeoning tourist attraction. I don't know much about it's social programs, except that Singapore does have many laws that limit certain freedoms we enjoy in the US. 3. New Zealand - Full of sheep loving Kiwis that get UHC, high tax rates, etc. etc. 4. Switzerland - A country that built it's wealth off of being the go-to mercenaries for several centuries. I'm not familiar with it's social policies outside of universal conscription and being very anal about speed limits. 5. UAE - already been done to death. Shariah law, blasphemy laws, slavery. 6. Mauritius - I am not familiar with them outside of being a tax haven? 7. Jordan - LO loving L. 8. Ireland - Again, not as familiar, but I'm pretty sure UHC, and they were allied with the Nazis at one point. 9. Canada - UHC, high taxes, the prima example of non-Libertarian ideologies. 10. UK - Same as Canada. 10. Chile - not as familiar with their social programs or personal freedoms 12. Australia - See New Zealand, but replace "sheep loving Kiwis" with "sheep loving criminals" 12. Georgia - Hey, a former soviet bloc country. Not sure their history on human rights except I'm sure they discriminate against ethnic Russian and Armenians? 14. Qatar - already done to death, again, blasphemy laws, prohibition on lots of things we enjoy. 15. Taiwan - Where I currently live. UHC, gun ownership is illegal, you can get sued for telling someone "gently caress you", government run by the hosed up shadow of a hosed up statist regime that is thankfully finally gone and hopefully the DPP will kick the KMT's rear end this next election cycle; lots of protectionist economic policies and capital punishment for drug offences 16. USA 17. Romania - Not sure their current disposition... 18. Armenia - Not familiar with their policies... 19. Finland - Not entirely familiar, but I believe UHC, heavy gun control 19. Lithuania - Not familiar with their policies... 19. Malta - Again, not familiar with their policies... Let's look at bottom 20: 138. Burundi - African nation, not familiar with their policies... 139. Mauritania - Not familiar with this nation... 139. Niger - African nation, not familiar, but I'm pretty sure they have very discriminatory laws in place against "undesirable" tribes and races. However, I don't think slavery is legal here. 141. Gabon - Not familiar with them... 142. Togo - Not familiar with them... 143. Ethiopia - African nation, often considered a literal hell hole because of the war lords running about; but I do believe slavery is still illegal here. 144. Dem. Rep. of Congo - African nation, Not familiar with policies, though I do believe they're coming out of years of civil war. Pretty sure slavery is illegal here, too. 145. Guinea - Not familiar with their policies 146. Myanmar - Not familiar with their policies, but I think they're a Muslim nation? I forget, but although they look down on Indians, I'm pretty sure slavery is illegal here. 147. Iran - Yeah, a theocratic statist regime. Honestly does deserve to be at the bottom of most "free" nation lists. Is slavery legal here? 148. Angola - I'm not familiar with their policies 149. Zimbabwe - African nation, not familiar with their policies, but I'm fairly certain they don't have legalized slavery here. 150. Central African Rep. - African nation, not familiar with their policies 151. Algeria - Again, not familiar with their policies 151. Argentina - Pretty sure a very socialist regime, but slavery is illegal here. 153. Syria - Yeah, we'll leave this one alone, though I'm pretty sure slavery was illegal here. 154. Chad - Not very familiar with their policies. 155. Libya - Kinda surprised to see them below Iran, as they're more open to foreign trade and what not. I'm not sure, but I don't think slavery is legal here. 156. Rep. of Congo - Not familiar with their policies off hand. 157. Venezuela - Socialist Dictatorship, okay yes it does deserve to be near the bottom of the list. It's funny that North Korea isn't anywhere on this list. Anyways, there's a lot left open as I'm not off hand familiar with all of these nation's policies, hopefully someone can fill in the gaps and correct me where I'm wrong. There's one more thing I want to hit, but I have to get going, time for lunch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:So I'm going to take a crack at this because, being a historical argument, it interests me as a historian. If I understand you, your basic point is that any social justice requires a sound standard of property rights to work out, and that your standard can even work out the historical injustices which many challenge you to resolve using it. Here's the problem: when faced with a massive historical socioeconomic injustice, your standard fails miserably at providing any degree of restitution. I am going to focus on slavery in the antebellum US here because I'm most familiar with it. Your standard is absolutely absurd. Yes, I fully admit that the crime of slavery was monstrous and that my plan does not fully rectify the historical injustice. The problem is that no possible solution can rectify the historical injustice. We can't go back and un-kill hundreds of thousands of Native Americans. There is no monetary compensation or land grant that could fully compensate living Native Americans for the crimes of genocide against an entire people. That is true. However, the reasonable hope is that if we start establishing and enforcing a universal standard of just property rights, while redistributing stolen property to its more rightful owner wherever and whenever it can be proven through genealogical testing and historical inquiry, past atrocities can and will become less important as time goes on. Your standard will only necessitate and exacerbate further injustice by taking money from people who had nothing to do with slavery and giving it to people whose ancestors were not enslaved. The current conditions of various peoples are based on MANY different factors. Blacks were not the only ones who suffered injustice. Jews were subject to terrible treatment and discrimination, as were the Irish, as were the Japanese. I am not claiming that the degree of past injustice for these groups were the equal of American blacks who were enslaved, but Jewish Americans and Japanese Americans have excelled despite these past injustices and now have average incomes and education levels that far exceed average whites who never had a history of suffering from such discrimination. There is a lot more to the problems facing contemporary black America than the history of slavery and white racism. You made the case that blacks whose ancestors were NOT enslaved still suffer from the legacy of slavery in less direct ways and thus deserve reparations and property transfers from other, presumably white, Americans. They also deserve I am assuming preferential treatment in College admissions, job interviews and things of that nature. I'm sure you support most State actions designed to help black Americans and you likely think they don't go nearly far enough. The problem for your position is that a lot of in depth studies have been done that show that discriminated minorities tend to excel and escape the shadow of oppression precisely to the degree in which they eschew political remedies. The Jewish and Japanese, for example, practiced solidarity in tight knit communities and developed strong entrepreneurial habits. They traded among themselves and refrained from engaging in many economic transactions with people who held bigoted views against them and they developed wealth within their communities. Unfortunately, State policies designed to help blacks have had the opposite effect in many cases. The second generation of black leaders tended to eschew the self-help doctrine and solidarity preached by the black Muslims and were largely assimilated into the Democratic party establishment and many blacks were distracted into seeking political solutions to their problems which have not served their communities well. I highly recommend the work of noted black economist and libertarian Walter Williams. He produced a documentary in the 1980s called "The State Against Blacks" and he documented all the ways in which political action and State policy have harmed black families and prevented the accumulation of wealth into predominantly black communities. In the long run, and in the interest of the welfare of blacks in America, it doesn't matter that libertarian property theory doesn't fully provide restitution for the atrocities of slavery. Your attitude seems to be one that relegates blacks to victimhood status and elevates the contemporary problem of white racism to an insurmountable obstacle that only an ongoing cycle of wealth transfer payments, State programs and the like can even begin to address. Unfortunately, this path bodes extremely bad for the welfare of black Americans as economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have repeatedly demonstrated and as the counterexamples of Japanese Americans and Jewish Americans, also the victims of racism and discrimination, demonstrate. Even if black Americans were wealthier than white Americans and contemporary anti-black racism was no problem at all, past property theft ought to be recompensed wherever it can be proven. The principle is one that establishes that theft is wrong. Period and without exception. Current blacks deserve reparations not because they aren't doing well now (which is true but besides the point) but because their ancestors were the victim of theft and thus they are more entitled to the stolen property than any other current user. jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know the degree to which that is occurring, what exactly is meant by the term "slavery". I am assuming we are speaking about actual chattel slavery, human beings being sold as property? Or are you referring to workers who don't have enough Union rights vis a vis their employers but are not forced to associate with them (i.e. they can quit their jobs)? you are a motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:Do they not get to drive on the roads to their new house? Well that isn't very loving voluntary is it, its coercive because they can either sign your contract or not. If they don't then what about other people who want to drive into your neighborhood? If i drive down to visit a friend do I have to pay a toll when I enter Jrodefeldville? Do you have any idea how incredibly inconvenient and impractical this starts getting once you realize that every single road system has to be paid for this way? Every road down to the roughest dirt track will now be equipped with E-ZPass. Easy! * I am 99% certain some libertarians have written jrod-length essays about how this is a good idea. * As a side effect a benevolent corporation is now tracking your every move. Economic freedom!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Your standard is absolutely absurd. Yes, I fully admit that the crime of slavery was monstrous and that my plan does not fully rectify the historical injustice. The problem is that no possible solution can rectify the historical injustice. We can't go back and un-kill hundreds of thousands of Native Americans. There is no monetary compensation or land grant that could fully compensate living Native Americans for the crimes of genocide against an entire people. Walter Block is a racist Jrodefeld. And like many racists before him you should probably stop parroting him before people start verbally kicking you in the head and you run off like a baby. Better yet stop talking about race. For a person who doesn't like talking about race that seems to be all you do these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know the degree to which that is occurring, what exactly is meant by the term "slavery". I am assuming we are speaking about actual chattel slavery, human beings being sold as property? Or are you referring to workers who don't have enough Union rights vis a vis their employers but are not forced to associate with them (i.e. they can quit their jobs)? i am going to quote this again to point out what a motherfucker you are you're literally going "hmmm are they slaves or are you just saying "slavery" because they're not mollycoddled by the union? they can quit can't they?"  you're a motherfucker and a coward jrode
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Current blacks deserve reparations not because they aren't doing well now (which is true but besides the point) Oh my God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 05:35
|
|