|
Mornacale posted:Feminism is a materialist ideology that exists specifically due to the context of modern patriarchy. What use can any struggle for equality have for a purely abstract viewpoint? Regardless of its abstract claims, in the real world libertarianism is staunchly allied with anti-feminists, ranging from conservative religious groups to neofascists to MRAs, and therefore is rightly understood to be an enemy of feminism. One that is pit against forces that even in the abstract have an explicitly anti-egalitarian viewpoint? Neofascists and MRAs are explicitly antifeminist because Americans / men being superior is a core tenet of their ideology, therefore their ideas are incompatible in any sense. It's ridiculous to say that libertarianism, much less capitalism is, ideologically incompatible with feminism because of self-ownership. Like, let's be real, by this definition libertarianism should be incompatible with literally any ideology not advocating for the destruction of human civilization, because that would be the real-world effect. The original complaint was specifically saying that the feminist idea of self-ownership could not be expressed in libertarian terms, into which equation neofascists and MRAs do not enter.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
So..I did some googling and I found a bunch of attempts to say that libertarian self-ownership and feminist self-ownership are the same thing and how feminist self-ownership underpins the idea that (from a libertarian-feminist perspective (HOW IS THAT A THING?!  )) women have the same rights as men and rape is bad and so on and so forth. What I did not find was any explanation for how feminist self-ownership is totally not the same thing as libertarian self-ownership and therefore not subject to all the same pitfalls. I understand the difference between feminism (roughly: women and men are both deserving of equal dignity) and libertarianism (roughly: free market über alles), what I don't get is how one's idea of self-ownership is any different than the other's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:So..I did some googling and I found a bunch of attempts to say that libertarian self-ownership and feminist self-ownership are the same thing and how feminist self-ownership underpins the idea that (from a libertarian-feminist perspective (HOW IS THAT A THING?! Libertarianism allows for the idea of a human as property. Feminism does not. It has to do with the fundamental view of where self-ownership comes from. Libertarianism is very heavily reliant on ownership rights and property rights. Since self-determination is paramount to freedom the argument is that you own yourself so you can decide what to do with your self. In the case of libertarianism all property ownership is transferable. Theoretically this means libertarianism allows you to sell yourself into slavery or sign up for indentured servitude (because, as we all know, such things were totally done freely by the people signing up for that stuff throughout history). Thus if somebody sells themselves into sex slavery then well they did it to themselves. Ignoring that such things would happen under duress or out of desperation and then well because it's transferable if you sell yourself to me I can sell you to somebody else whether you like it or not. This is apparent in how big libertarianism is on contracts. You can preemptively sign away your right to say "no" if it's in the contract. Feminism believes that you can make your own choices in life. Ownership is the wrong word to use in feminist self-ownership, I think, as it's more about total self-determination. You "own" yourself in that the final decision for what you do with your life is yours. If that means that you like the idea of being a sex slave then you can do that if you really want to but the person you indenture yourself to does not own you and you are free to leave whenever you wish. More importantly that person can't transfer that to somebody else without your permission. Even in cases like that the final decision is yours. More importantly being forced into such situations is not acceptable. Your ability to say "no" can never be taken away. Far as I understand it a big difference is in the transferability. According to feminism you are absolutely never the property of anybody. You get to make your own choices and the final decision of what you do with yourself and your body is yours. Really I think the short of it is that libertarianism bases it on property rights. Feminism bases it on human rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Feminism isn't a single formalized school of thought and there are absolutely several strands of it that are explicitly anti capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Feminism isn't a single formalized school of thought and there are absolutely several strands of it that are explicitly anti capitalist. Likewise for libertarianism; we had this discussion on self-ownership leading to slavery before with jrod, and he was basically all "nuh-uh you can't sell yourself, you always own yourself", and since this was so obvious to him he didn't feel like it was necessary to explain why with a coherent reason (not that he ever does anyway). This eventually led to him saying something along the lines of "black slaves were never actually slaves, they always had the choice of death ergo they were slaves voluntarily", and then when everyone stopped laughing and pointed out that you could think of taxation in the same way he decided to stop posting for 3 weeks QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Likewise for libertarianism; we had this discussion on self-ownership leading to slavery before with jrod, and he was basically all "nuh-uh you can't sell yourself, you always own yourself", and since this was so obvious to him he didn't feel like it was necessary to explain why with a coherent reason (not that he ever does anyway). This eventually led to him saying something along the lines of "black slaves were never actually slaves, they always had the choice of death ergo they were slaves voluntarily", and then when everyone stopped laughing and pointed out that you could think of taxation in the same way he decided to stop posting for 3 weeks I want to say most but I'm not entirely sure about the exact numbers but it was "a lot." Most libertarians I met argued that indentured servitude was perfectly fine even though it was, you know, basically slavery. I met a disturbing number that thought one step beyond that was fine. If somebody wants to sell themselves into slavery it's perfectly fine for them to do so. Of course they don't bother acknowledging the can of worms that opens up but HUMANS ACT PRAXEOLOGY I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I guess I can't see this bolded bit this being antithetical to feminism in the purely abstract formulation here. Feminism is not socialism, and doesn't care about economic classes being coerced, as long as those economic classes are also stratified along sex / gender / orientation / race / etc. lines. If it's white dudes and black trans women suffering equally, there's nothing really unfeminist about itit just wouldn't be that way in the real world. I suppose it's not in the purely abstract but when you already have women statistically on the disadvantaged end of things, the concept of tradable self-ownership would serve to entrench that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Likewise for libertarianism; we had this discussion on self-ownership leading to slavery before with jrod, and he was basically all "nuh-uh you can't sell yourself, you always own yourself", and since this was so obvious to him he didn't feel like it was necessary to explain why with a coherent reason (not that he ever does anyway). This eventually led to him saying something along the lines of "black slaves were never actually slaves, they always had the choice of death ergo they were slaves voluntarily", and then when everyone stopped laughing and pointed out that you could think of taxation in the same way he decided to stop posting for 3 weeks Crossposted from JRod's property rights thread: Caros posted:The problem with this argument is the involuntary car wash. If I wash your car without permission I can't go and say you owe me two dollars, even if I put way more than $2 work into the car wash. Trade doesn't simply require consideration, it also requires intent. Of course the simple counter to that is that the choice to continue living in America into adulthood is an implied in fact agreement to pay your taxes. Sovcits just practice an even more patently ridiculous version of this, with their "fee schedules" and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Libertarianism allows for the idea of a human as property. Feminism does not. It has to do with the fundamental view of where self-ownership comes from. Yes, this pretty much. For the feminist example I wrote "belonging" and not "ownership" for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
This article seems relevant to libertarian positions. "Hundreds of women have lost big clumps of hair after using our hair products? They used too much. Or too little. Or they didn't wash it out well enough. Other women aren't suffering the same thing so clearly it isn't an issue. You can't prove it anyway. We'll continue defending our product to the death." Imagine this line of rationalization but applied to deadly food-borne pathogens, pollution, and poo poo like automobile safety. "Our car doesn't have seatbelts or airbags, and it occasionally traps the driver inside right before bursting into flames, but it's 15% cheaper than the competitor's model! Free market!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
It's important to recognize the context of any feminist discussion of self-ownership, namely that in the western world women have traditionally been considered posessions of others. Consequently, "self-ownership" is a rejection of ownership by men (e.g. daughters and wives) or the state (e.g. widows and pregnant women). Libertarianism, by contrast, is a creation of white dudes who wanted to justify and entrench their hegemony over everyone else. Rich white men weren't considered property, so consequently "self-ownership" in libertarianism is a wholly abstract concept that exists solely to beg the question about whether all rights are fundamentally reducible to private property rights. Another way of saying this is that feminists say "you own yourself" but libertarians are emphasizing "you own yourself".
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I think the main difference, like with most with regards to libertarianism, is that feminism bases itself on a context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
ReasonTV put out a "hilarious" Star Wars parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HeWcY5GVlQ Probably the most ironic part to me was that Senator Revan Paul was named after an ancient Sith Lord from one of the video games. Darth Revan tried to conquer the galaxy, that's not very libertarian! :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yeah, well, you do own yourself so that's just too bad you feel that way. If a woman wants to sell herself into indentured servitude for a year for personal gain and won't literally starve if she doesn't, I don't see how it's feminist to hand wring over it. Coerced to trade your labor if there's no other way to access a given luxury (such as a higher paycheck than some hypothetical basic income floor that's necessary to survive), maybe. Fortunately, you're not entitled to luxuries so if it's not worth it to you, don't take the trade! Or do, whatever. I'm not an expert in feminism, but I'm pretty sure most feminists would consider it a violent rape if a woman is not permitted to withdraw consent for sex regardless of whether she agreed in the past to waive future consent and regardless of how much she was paid in advance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:ReasonTV put out a "hilarious" Star Wars parody: Every time I tried to click on this video it's like there was a little wooden dowel under my mouse button, preventing me from clicking on it. I still haven't managed to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
At least they still think the Empire are the baddies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Of course! The empire is a state. The hero of the films is Jabba, a successful business man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
I watched that and was it supposed to be a defence of libertarian beliefs or what? Because if it was it's the most incompetent thing I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I watched that and was it supposed to be a defence of libertarian beliefs or what? Because if it was it's the most incompetent thing I've ever seen. From what I've seen, whenever libertarians try to be creative, it doesn't go well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:ReasonTV put out a "hilarious" Star Wars parody:  BreakAtmo posted:From what I've seen, whenever libertarians try to be creative, it doesn't go well. I don't know which is worse; The video, or that I get the 'jokes' they're trying to make. I didn't laugh at any of them, mind. I just felt my soul withering away, one tiny slice at a time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:ReasonTV put out a "hilarious" Star Wars parody: I honestly cannot tell if its pro or anti libertarian, this poo poo has gotten way to over my head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Or its just a lovely video.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:ReasonTV put out a "hilarious" Star Wars parody: I'll admit it, I laughed when Revan Paul got shot in the face after asking if he was being detained. It's actually a pretty good video overall if you view it as anti-libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Turtle Sandbox posted:I honestly cannot tell if its pro or anti libertarian, this poo poo has gotten way to over my head. It's definitely "pro," since it's made by the TV arm of the Reason Foundation. This definitely isn't the first time Internet libertarians have been all "See kids? This popular media franchise you like promotes libertarian ideals! That means libertarianism is cool!" They did it for Harry Potter, they did it for the Hunger Games, they did it for Iron Man 2 (  ), and now they're doing it for Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:It's definitely "pro," since it's made by the TV arm of the Reason Foundation. This definitely isn't the first time Internet libertarians have been all "See kids? This popular media franchise you like promotes libertarian ideals! That means libertarianism is cool!" They did it for Harry Potter, they did it for the Hunger Games, they did it for Iron Man 2 ( I guess I don't understand libertarianism, how is a weak state going to protect job creators from the unwashed masses?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Turtle Sandbox posted:I guess I don't understand libertarianism, how is a weak state going to protect job creators from the unwashed masses?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Turtle Sandbox posted:I guess I don't understand libertarianism, how is a weak state going to protect job creators from the unwashed masses? Private security and private courts/arbitration. Right now we have a nearly socialist police and justice system where the same levels of justice are officially guaranteed to all citizens. In libertopia justice and security are correctly priced and those who are worth more can enjoy more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This article seems relevant to libertarian positions. "Hundreds of women have lost big clumps of hair after using our hair products? They used too much. Or too little. Or they didn't wash it out well enough. Other women aren't suffering the same thing so clearly it isn't an issue. You can't prove it anyway. We'll continue defending our product to the death." Imagine this line of rationalization but applied to deadly food-borne pathogens, pollution, and poo poo like automobile safety. "Our car doesn't have seatbelts or airbags, and it occasionally traps the driver inside right before bursting into flames, but it's 15% cheaper than the competitor's model! Free market!" We've already got that going on here in Texas. People are way too excited that Blue Bell Ice Cream is back and this time they promise they're no longer willfully including poison in the ice cream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
It's worth mentioning that a lot of libertarians only want a night-watchman state, where the police, the military, and the courts are the only public institutions and their only job is to protect citizens from theft, assault, fraud, and breach of contract. Some of them also add on other stuff like emergency services and a judiciary. These minarchists argue that anarchy cannot enforce the NAP, so a minimal state is necessary. They just quibble about how "minimal" the state ought to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
duz posted:We've already got that going on here in Texas. People are way too excited that Blue Bell Ice Cream is back and this time they promise they're no longer willfully including poison in the ice cream. Just like the good ole days, when good honest people made a simple product for simple people and didn't have to worry about big scary government shutting them down for spurious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
If you're genuinely curious what food in the "good old days" was like, the Victorian/Edwardian periods are good to look at, with such examples of bakers bulking up bread with gypsum, sawdust or just plain rat poison. Boracic acid in milk to hide the taste and smell of rotten milk filled with TB. Truly a wondrous age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:If you're genuinely curious what food in the "good old days" was like, the Victorian/Edwardian periods are good to look at, with such examples of bakers bulking up bread with gypsum, sawdust or just plain rat poison. Boracic acid in milk to hide the taste and smell of rotten milk filled with TB. Right but without state violence to support their monopolies a truly free market would provide a non-sawdust alternative break and the market would destroy the poisoned bread. This would also happen instantly before anyone even got sick and everyone would know what was in every product because my system only works with instant and perfect information about everything on the market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
This got its own thread in this forum, but it seems to be worthy of discussion from a libertarian perspective. In a nutshell: China has turned obedience into a game and is using privately owned and operated social media companies for data gathering and enforcement with plans to make participation mandatory by 2020. They're in the process of setting up the exact kind of omniscient surveillance hell-scape that some thinkers (such as..uh..that sexist guy... Molyneux?) propose is necessary for a libertarian society to function. I imagine the response will be that since it's an entity called a "government" sitting behind the wheel this is somehow a bad thing (which it definitely is) and not at all how it would work in real life, no sir.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Gameifying propaganda and loyalty to the state is brilliant, and terrifying. Why pay people like to parrot government narratives online like the Russians do when you can get the whole country competitively involved while punishing any speech that goes against the current government line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Hey guys since  we're recording tomorrow at 7 PM EST I thought I'd once again try to get everyone's opinion on what specifically to talk about with regards to gold bugs, bitcoin, and whatever the gently caress it is that Eripsa is always on about. If you plan to participate or listen, please contribute your thoughts by expanding the outline found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TMkP7q7f8GJCLYHyDU3iazd3KGvYGW48mRC5qNrlVQ0/edit?usp=sharingDisclaimer: I am totally not trying to move the thread to a google doc this time guys. Here's the hangout we'll be using:[url] https://talkgadget.google.com/hangouts/_/xqy7e6mzn35rj7g6gyr6d4nsaia[/url]
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Right but without state violence to support their monopolies a truly free market would provide a non-sawdust alternative break and the market would destroy the poisoned bread. This would also happen instantly before anyone even got sick and everyone would know what was in every product because my system only works with instant and perfect information about everything on the market. and once the poison-free bread company has established their own, benevolent monopoly, there's no market pressure for them to cut costs by emulating the practices of the competitors they pushed out 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Hey guys since Wait, what's going on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Wait, what's going on? Last Saturday there was another of those goon libertarian thread hangouts, this time the topic was bitcoin and goldbugs
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Last Saturday there was another of those goon libertarian thread hangouts, this time the topic was bitcoin and goldbugs Oh cool. First I'm hearing of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Last Saturday there was another of those goon libertarian thread hangouts, this time the topic was bitcoin and goldbugs We did not get to gold or Eripsa, sadly. We only talked about Bitcoin and we still missed a million loving things, feels like. Here's the link to the first one we did that talked about Libertarians and Jrod if you're curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:53
|
|