|
I AM THE ULTIMATE DESTROYER *punches self in the dick* Edit: This is one of the best posts to start a new page with that I've ever done.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Eh you could have significant differences in social liberalism within communism, which would be the difference between utopia and an ant colony. On the subject - another (widely accepted) term for Anarcho Communism is "Libertarian Communism" for example. Nobody would define Libertarian Communism as containing the explicit right to the enjoyment of private property (it definitely doesn't), but it absolutely is in favour of personal property rights. And yet Libertarianism, when defined as distinct from Liberalism is (in the typical sense as used by insane americans) an ideology championing the completely independent and ungoverned freedom of the individual, including in market and economic activities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
I'd say that the only significant difference between Libertarianism and Libertarian Communism is that while both recognize that the right to do what you want does not include the right to steal from other people, only one of them includes capital gains, land monopoly and usury within that definition. Turns out that one difference produces quite a difference in results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
namesake posted:I AM THE ULTIMATE DESTROYER It's certainly a much more dramatic intervention than having children. Thank god I live in a time where I can voluntarily decide to undo millennia of gene transfer with a latex sleeve or a hormone pill. God bless science. Although I probably wouldn't equate that with punching myself in the dick - the dick has numerous functions beyond spreading the human menace. Don't cut off your dick to spite your balls etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Libertarianism is, if anything, what you get when you start from private property rights and construct an entire view of ethics from there. It views everything in terms of private property rights. Are there any good resources explaining the difference between personal and private property because while I understand the difference in a touchy feely kind of way I've never come across anything that really sets out a philosophical difference between the two. Ddraig posted:Don't cut off your dick to spite your balls etc. Cut off your balls to spite your ancestors though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:When I made that argument in the kidhaving thread everyone said I was insane. It's one of the most basic and universal human behaviors in the world. Whilst I agree a lower birth rate would be desirable you can't really be too surprised people still want to have kids when we can't convince alot of people not to treat immigrants like human waste or vote for psychopathic aristocrats who despise them
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'd say that the only significant difference between Libertarianism and Libertarian Communism is that while both recognize that the right to do what you want does not include the right to steal from other people, only one of them includes capital gains, land monopoly and usury within that definition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:It's one of the most basic and universal human behaviors in the world. Whilst I agree a lower birth rate would be desirable you can't really be too surprised people still want to have kids when we can't convince alot of people not to treat immigrants like human waste or vote for psychopathic aristocrats who despise them I'm not surprised about it, I'm just a bit surprised at the ardent focus on constructing arguments for why it's actually objectively morally good and everyone needs to do it. Can't you just go with the normal "I don't really care about you enough to stop doing what I want to do" that you use when ignoring the homeless like a normal human being?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are there any good resources explaining the difference between personal and private property because while I understand the difference in a touchy feely kind of way I've never come across anything that really sets out a philosophical difference between the two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are there any good resources explaining the difference between personal and private property because while I understand the difference in a touchy feely kind of way I've never come across anything that really sets out a philosophical difference between the two. Well I imagine some anarchist philosophy will take you through it step by step but the simple difference is if it's a physical possession which you need to personally have or use then it's personal because you're deriving pleasure or fulfilling need from the personal relationship with the item, if your desire for ownership of it is based around using your control over it to sway an arrangement or coerce others or to simply provide you with a means of income through rent or profit then it's private property because it's not providing you directly with anything at all, it's merely a tool you use to manipulate others into a situation which benefits you in an observable material sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Libertarianism is, if anything, what you get when you start from private property rights and construct an entire view of ethics from there. It views everything in terms of private property rights. It seems to me that modern capitalist libertarianism is just libertarian communism as cooked up by people who think that communist is a dirty word and capitalism means freedom, who never bothered to think past the first premise in Kropotkin's (worker owned) train of thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not surprised about it, I'm just a bit surprised at the ardent focus on constructing arguments for why it's actually objectively morally good and everyone needs to do it. Who have you seen arguing this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Who have you seen arguing this? Not an enormous number of people but it still comes up more commonly than I would expect, and I've never been able to get a concrete answer as to why it's good, just a strong belief that it is. Guavanaut posted:Kropotkin outright says a lot of stuff that modern an-caps say, like "a bunch of small companies can build a more efficient railway network than a large government can", he just takes it to the logical conclusion of "and therefore those small companies can be more efficient being made up of independent workers in free association" and "therefore to ensure free association, they cannot be beholden to a landowner or a capitalist, because that is the root of coercion". Best I can deduce modern loony-american libertarianism isn't so much a philosophy as much as it's capitalist romanticism, as it relies on ignoring the logical conclusion of its suggestions in favor of focus on how cool it would be to be the elite in that society and all the cool stuff they could do (if you consider being able to buy everything cool) OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
The only people I've noticed encouraging others to have children are wannabe grandparents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
You probably don't argue with people that they probably shouldn't have kids on the basis that kid having is sort of inherently immoral though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Just for fun I'm gonna paste another excerpt and then I'm gonna gently caress off for a while and actually do something productive.quote:According to Townsend, the ‘stock of human happiness is … much increased’ by the presence of ‘the poor’, who were compelled to perform the most arduous and painful work. The poor fully deserved their fate, were by definition wastrels and vagrants. But it would be a disaster for society if, by some chance, they were to mend their ways: ‘The fleets and armies of a state would soon be in want of soldiers and of sailors, if sobriety and diligence universally prevailed’; and the country’s economy would find itself in difficulties. Mandeville reached the same conclusion: ‘To make the society … happy … it is requisite that great numbers … should be ignorant as well as poor’; ‘the surest wealth consists in a multitude of laborious poor’. And let us now read Arthur Young: ‘every one but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will never be industrious’, and would not produce the ‘wealth of nations’ referred to by Smith. Later, in France, Destutt de Tracy arrived at the same conclusion: ‘In poor nations the people are comfortable, in rich nations they are generally poor.’ And it bears repeating - this wasn't just the way people thought at the time. There were many vigorous voices lined up against this and which recognised the inhumanity inherent in these views. Liberalism is far from being the pathetic, weak, ineffectual ideology that some leftists accuse it of for not going quite far enough in the search for equality. It is explicitly and knowingly exclusionary, unequal, illiberal, dictatorial and vile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You probably don't argue with people that they probably shouldn't have kids on the basis that kid having is sort of inherently immoral though. Some do, apparently big scary monsters posted:Choosing to have a child in this country is supremely selfish and egotistical. I know that it's not quite as simple as going to the child pound and picking one out, but if you want a kid then it seems to me that in the UK adopting is really the only morally defensible choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not an enormous number of people but it still comes up more commonly than I would expect, and I've never been able to get a concrete answer as to why it's good, just a strong belief that it is. Well, I've never seen anyone say that. Honestly it strikes me as one of those issues where, outside of government social policy, people should just mind their own business and lead by example with their own lives. Pontificating about the morality of childbirth is absurd
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier, arguing that having children is immoral is a bit weird
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Well yeah just going up to people in the street and haranguing them about it is, especially if they already have them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
cargohills posted:OwlFancier, arguing that having children is immoral is a bit weird Also arguing that full communism is the only moral method of socio-economic organization would be a bit weird to most people in the current climate, but here we are in UKMT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
cargohills posted:OwlFancier, arguing that having children is immoral is a bit weird no, it isn't. You make a choice to ignore the incredible amount of resources spent during a period of global inequality and impending man-made environment collapse. Or, in ignorance, do the exact same. Your kids will not do anything to ever repay for this consumption. Arguing that people shouldnt have family is far too much of an asked sacrifice to bother with, that doesn't mean the argument is invalid. OwlFancier posted:Well yeah just going up to people in the street and haranguing them about it is, especially if they already have them. Also this main point
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
I didn't say the argument is invalid
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
I mean strictly I look forward to having a lot more money than I would without kids and I have cousins and that who are producing family if i wanted that. Doubtless I'll end up as someone's weird not-related uncle. It's me, I am the petty familial bourgeoisie, benefiting from the parental labour of my peers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Nationalise children imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
OvineYeast posted:Nationalise children imo quote:Other representatives of the liberal tradition invoked much more extensive intervention. For the purposes of generating a potentially perfect race of docile workers and instruments of labour, the concentration-camp universe of the ‘workhouses’ could prove useful. Locking up the children of delinquents and ‘suspects’ therein, one could (observed Bentham) produce an ‘indigenous class’ that would be distinguished for its industriousness and sense of discipline. If early marriage was promoted within this class, treating the offspring as apprentices until they attained their majority, the workhouses and society would dispose of an inexhaustible reserve of manpower of the highest quality. In other words, through the ‘gentlest of all revolutions’— a sexual revolution79— the ‘indigenous class’, propagating itself in hereditary fashion from one generation to the next, would be transformed into a kind of indigenous race. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
OvineYeast posted:Nationalise children imo pretty sure that's what the care home system did, mainly for the benefit of pedos
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:no, it isn't. You make a choice to ignore the incredible amount of resources spent during a period of global inequality and impending man-made environment collapse. Or, in ignorance, do the exact same. Placing the onus on the parents for making the 'bad' decision is still an incredible piece of Tory logic, people are always going to have children. Rather than condemn water for falling from the sky and bears for making GBS threads in the woods surely the blame should be placed on our insanely wasteful consumption and aggricultural practices which makes children such a burden on the world? Concluding that the vast majority of people are just living in Sin, even if you don't plan to do anything about it, doesn't seem like an incredible plan for moving forward
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Placing the onus on the parents for making the 'bad' decision is still an incredible piece of Tory logic, people are always going to have children. Rather than condemn water for falling from the sky and bears for making GBS threads in the woods surely the blame should be placed on our insanely wasteful consumption and aggricultural practices which makes children such a burden on the world? Concluding that the vast majority of people are just living in Sin, even if you don't plan to do anything about it, doesn't seem like an incredible plan for moving forward People always are going to do a lot of things that they shouldn't. Punitive measures are rarely helpful but asking people to consider the ethical implications of having children is hardly abhorrent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Placing the onus on the parents for making the 'bad' decision is still an incredible piece of Tory logic, people are always going to have children. Rather than condemn water for falling from the sky and bears for making GBS threads in the woods surely the blame should be placed on our insanely wasteful consumption and aggricultural practices which makes children such a burden on the world? Concluding that the vast majority of people are just living in Sin, even if you don't plan to do anything about it, doesn't seem like an incredible plan for moving forward I'm not really sure why it needs a plan to move forward, it's an observation that having children is in direct conflict with any conservationist ethic. Changing the circumstance changes the morality of the decision. It's a good argument against morality being useful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I don't subscribe to Malthus' views because I think they're evil but I do think that having kids is generally a bad thing, especially (or even exclusively) in developed countries, given that there seems to be absolutely no other concerted effort at all to combat climate change and in general given how lovely things are going to be in a couple of years time, it seems like a net-evil to willingly subject people to that. Do you have any thoughts on why or how this might tie in with "impending extinction of the human race!  " being such a big thing in fiction? It's been around ages but seems like it's getting a second wind lately, whether it's robots or aliens or x-men or whatever, the impending destruction of "humanity" that somehow doesn't involve all people dying (because whatever is replacing or superceding humans is still always identifiable as "people" you could have a friendly chat with if you tried; I'm not talking about zombie apocalypse stuff here) is, in the media in which it appears, a major gut-level driver for the actions of the hero or villain or mob that never really gets analysed. Extinction looms, that's bad and we have to stop it, even though none of us personally are going to die, because Basically I can't tell if it's A Thing because of some  compulsion most people feel to continue their line even if that's not something they intellectually care about, or if it's more related to the kind of knee jerk negative reaction people have to immigration, the feeling that everything will be meaningfully different if the percentage of people similar to themselves changes, or whether it's just a super big version of our inability to deal with death or endings of any kind. I've had a bit to drink so sorry if this doesn't really make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Do you have any thoughts on why or how this might tie in with "impending extinction of the human race! I think I read somewhere, once, about it being a reaction to the cloying, anonymous nature of a society in which nobody feels they will be able to excel or break free from some constraints. The world ending with your own personal survival (and implied freedom from social mores owing to the collapse of civilised society) will obviously have a certain allure when people feel they have limited agency and meaning in their real life. The zombie thing is, I think, similar, with the zombies representing the mindless mass of conventional humanity - which the protagonist is obviously distinct from in exerting free will and independence. I've read all of these theories somewhere or other but no idea how much currency they have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:People always are going to do a lot of things that they shouldn't. And I'd agree it is a subject which should be raised more in public and potentially could be something which could be targeted with legislation. I just think framing the issue in such absolute terms is reductionist and ignores why people have children and is ultimately unhelpful in changing many peoples minds Spangly A posted:I'm not really sure why it needs a plan to move forward, it's an observation that having children is in direct conflict with any conservationist ethic. Changing the circumstance changes the morality of the decision. It's a good argument against morality being useful. Well, most people wouldn't explictly identify as conservationists, I guess if you're talking to an environmentalist it's more pertinent. As for 'moving forward', I just assumed most people in this thread are in some shape politically active and I think a rigid anti-childbirth stance is a pretty clear dead end with the general public
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
"There is a much stronger ethical argument against having children than there is for it, and I am absolutely resolute in that." is not mutually exclusive with "But I don't expect you to agree and can still work with you if you don't." Much like "full communism now" is not mutually exclusive with "stop hacking the welfare state to pieces with your stupid condom shaped head" and I can entirely vote for the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Oh good we've had incestchat and now its antispawnerchat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I was going to say "what if Mr and Mrs Marx had never had baby Karl", but then Ober posted that and erm that EDM with Corbyn and the pigeons may have had the right idea
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'm glad we've left all that long in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
I don't think many people think about it in terms of continuing their line, or creating miniature versions of themselves for the good of humanity or any of that. They just want to have children. It might not be a good thing to want, or a morally justifiable thing but for a lot of people it's just a deep seated desire. If you don't want to that's fine and I think the pressure that women get is ridiculous (not because other people are telling them that it's the ethical thing to do, it's generally more along the lines of "of course you want children, you just don't know it") but in the main I think people aren't really thinking about genetics and keeping up the stock of good anglo saxon or whatever the hell we are blood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
Ichabod Sexbeast posted:I was going to say "what if Mr and Mrs Marx had never had Then we'd have been deprived of Eleanor Marx.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:07
|
|