Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

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

«‹›115 »

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

I genuinely think this is my favourite thread to go to for laughs.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 02:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 17:06

Tom Clancy is Dead: Jul 13, 2011

It's got all the :effort:

posts of d&d with all the :iceburn:

one could wish for.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 02:21

Grand Theft Autobot: Feb 28, 2008; I'm something of a fucking idiot myself

Not to mention watching someone's brain slowly melt out of their ears due to chronic lyme disease and probable mercury poisoning.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 03:18

Twerkteam Pizza: Sep 26, 2015; Grimey Drawer

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

Not to mention watching someone's brain slowly melt out of their ears due to chronic lyme disease and probable mercury poisoning.

goldmine?

# ? Feb 11, 2016 04:22

Buried alive: Jun 8, 2009

I kind of think we should gold mine the thread just so any time someone shows up and goes "Man, ya'll sure are mean to that JRod guy," we can go "Let me educate you," and then post the link.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 04:53

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

Maybe goldmine the original Jrod thread and keep this one open for Jrod to post his rambling responses?

# ? Feb 11, 2016 04:57

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

hellban all of us so that only jrode can see our posts, and we can only see his

# ? Feb 11, 2016 05:55

Cemetry Gator: Apr 3, 2007; Do you find something comical about my appearance when I'm driving my automobile?

Buried alive posted:

I kind of think we should gold mine the thread just so any time someone shows up and goes "Man, ya'll sure are mean to that JRod guy," we can go "Let me educate you," and then post the link.

I can't recall anyone saying that, and I assume if they said that, they'd probably be a pretty big troll too. Most of my posts towards JRod tend to be "You already said this and this is what I said last time" or me trying to help him not say racist things.

And I'm pissed off about his recent racist spat. I was proud of how I showed that a lbertarian society could not tolerate babies, but no, that line of argument had to be overlooked because he proposed racial profiling as a reasonable solution to some of life's problems.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:14

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

GunnerJ posted:

Hoppe has a rather more elaborate and revealing answer here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/

This is amazing.

HHH posted:

How to determine who owes whom how much and of what? And how to implement this restitution scheme in the absence of a State, and without thereby trampling on someone else�s private property rights? This poses the central intellectual problem for any self-styled left- libertarian.

Not surprisingly, the answer given by them to this challenge turns out evasive and vague. From all I can gather, it amounts to little more than an exhortation. As a keen observer of the intellectual scene has summarized it: �Be nice!� More precisely: You, you small group of �victimizers,� must always be especially �nice,� forgiving, and inclusive vis-a-vis all members of the vast majority of �victims,� i.e., the long and familiar list of everyone except white, heterosexual males! And as for enforcement: All �victimizers� not demonstrating proper respect to some victim-class member, i.e., victimizers who are �nasty,� unforgiving or exclusive or who say �nasty� or disrespectful things about them, must be publicly shunned, humiliated, and shamed into obedience!

At first sight or hearing, this proposal how to do restitution may � as can be expected coming from �nice� people � appear, well, well meaning, harmless and plain �nice�. In fact, however, it is anything but �nice� and harmless advice. It is wrong and dangerous.

First off: Why should anyone be particularly nice to anyone else � apart from respecting ones� respective private property rights in certain specified physical means (goods)? To be nice is a deliberate action and takes an effort, like all actions do. There are opportunity costs. The same effort could also be put to other effects. Indeed, many if not most of our activities are conducted alone and in silence, without any direct interaction with others, as when we prepare our meal, drive our car, or read and write. Time devoted to �niceness to others� is time lost to do other, possibly more worthwhile things. Moreover, niceness must be warranted. Why should I be nice to people who are nasty to me? Niceness must be deserved. Indiscriminating niceness diminishes and ultimately extinguishes the distinction between meritorious and faulty conduct. Too much niceness will be given to undeserving people and too little to deserving ones and the overall level of nastiness will consequently rise and public life become increasingly unpleasant.

Moreover, there are also genuinely evil people doing real evil things to real private property owners, most importantly the ruling elites in charge of the State-apparatus, as every libertarian would have to admit. One surely has no obligation to be nice to them! And yet, in rewarding the vast majority of �victims� with extra love, care and attention, one accomplishes precisely this: less time and effort is devoted to exhibiting nasty behavior toward those actually most deserving of it. The power of the State will not be weakened by universal �niceness,� then, but strengthened.

Being nice to people is a scarce resource, apparently. If you're too nice to blacks and gays, you'll run out of niceness and you'll uncontrollably start hurling slurs at white heterosexual males and then where would we be.

Every time I restrain myself from yelling n****r at a black child I have to work out my rage by punching a white baby, why do you want to see babies get hit statists?

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Feb 11, 2016

# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:26

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

This whole thing of trying to shove everything into econ101 scarce resources and supply-and-demand curves is so weird. Reminds me of jrod's argument that UHC is unaffordable because not-having-cancer is a scarce resource so UHC will just encourage people to get cancer so they can hog all the free treatment.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:33

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

VitalSigns posted:

This is amazing.

I think it's pretty hard to top this:

quote:

Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory.

If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.

Because of such conflicts � and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other � we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.

But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly (I can control your body only in-directly, by first directly controlling my body, and vice versa) and that only he directly controls also in particular when discussing and arguing the question at hand. Otherwise, if body-ownership were assigned to some indirect body-controller, conflict would become unavoidable as the direct body-controller cannot give up his direct control over his body as long as he is alive; and in particular, otherwise it would be impossible that any two persons, as the contenders in any property dispute, could ever argue and debate the question whose will is to prevail, since arguing and debating presupposes that both, the proponent and the opponent, have exclusive control over their respective bodies and so come to the correct judgment on their own, without a fight (in a conflict-free form of interaction).

And second, as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): Exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner. For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent.

Let me emphasize that I consider this theory as essentially irrefutable, as a priori true. In my estimation this theory represents one of the greatest � if not the greatest � achievement of social thought. It formulates and codifies the immutable ground rules for all people, everywhere, who wish to live together in peace.

And yet: This theory does not tell us very much about real life.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:36

Polygynous: Dec 13, 2006; welp

How did you not bold this

quote:

Indeed, many if not most of our activities are conducted alone and in silence, without any direct interaction with others, as when we prepare our meal, drive our car, or read and write.

How I drive doesn't affect anyone. As long as I haven't literally run you off the road I haven't violated the NAP. :psyduck:

# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:43

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

Triple H's argument there would certainly give him a great reason to not spend a lot of time around people he hates. I don't think anyone begrudges the cranky old man who hates the blacks his house, his porch, and his privacy. However, it also takes energy to sarcastically express your disdain at government employees, so maybe... don't go spend time around them, more than you have to!

"Ignore and be ignored," as the Palainians say. Oh, and pay your drat taxes on time and in full.

Also, lol, "interpersonal conflicts are always about scarce things."

# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:54

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

Muscle Tracer posted:

hellban all of us so that only jrode can see our posts, and we can only see his

That would literally be Hell.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 07:13

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

Man, I keep chomping at the bit with that Jazz music question since I loving love Jazz music and sincerely wish Jrode could see past his blinding racism to appreciate it.

How much longer do I have to wait before I can give my answers? I'd tag it with spoilers, promise.

I'm most certainly no racist as anyone who knows me in real life would certainly attest, but I know that discussing who is and who isn't a racist between anonymous internet posters is rarely a productive exercise so I'll just not engage with that point.

Actually, I don't know too much about Jazz music so I doubt I could mention that many Jazz artists regardless of their race. I still carrying around a massive case of cds, which might be absurd but I like the tactical feel of having a disc to play. If I had to count the non-black artists in my collection, I could probably count them on two hands. I'd guess that easily 90% of the music in my collection is by black artists. Kind of a weird ratio for a supposed racist, but I won't belabor that point.

I'd actually love to get more into Jazz music so if you could recommend some artists to me I'll certainly check them out. Even though I haven't listened to them much, I am certainly aware of big names like John Coltrane, Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong. Actually, I do know that my parents played some Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis when I was little so I remember being around Jazz music to some degree as I was growing up.

I don't know if this would surprise you or not, but I've actually been a huge hip hop fan since I was in high school. I've got several hundred rap cds, many of which I consider to be classics of the genre. Rap is a misunderstood form of music because, although it has produced some great artists and iconic records, it's also produced some of the worst crap in music.

The best current rapper in my estimation is Kendrick Lamar. Hands down, no question about it. Probably his latest album "To Pimp a Butterfly" will win Album of the Year at the Grammys, which would be only the third time in history that a hip hop album took the top honor and I think it would be well deserved.

I'll give you a list of what I think of as some of the best rap albums of all time, to give you a glimpse of my musical taste.

Nas - Illmatic
Raekwon - Only Built 4 Cuban Linx
Outkast - Aquemini
Wu Tang Clan - Wu Tang Forever
Public Enemy - Fear of a Black Planet
Boogie Down Productions - By Any Means Necessary
Immortal Technique - Revolutionary Vol. 2
Outkast - ATLians

Besides hip hop, I tend to dig artists that stray outside of conventional genres. I like what Janelle Monae does, for example and I think it's a real shame she doesn't sell much more than she does. I really enjoyed D'Angelo's latest album and I'd like to see more of a resurgence of RnB and Soul music that is both modern and forward thinking, yet also a throwback to when that style of music was more musically accomplished.

I hope you don't consider this statement to be "racist", which it won't be unless you consider liking a particular race to be racist, but it almost seems to me that black people tend to be better at music period. This is an absurd generalization to be sure, and probably speaks more to my personal preferences than it does anything else. Nevertheless, I think it is nearly impossible to deny that blacks have made a contribution to the American music scene that is far out of proportion with their percentage of the population. And for that, I am genuinely thankful.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 10:09

Zanzibar Ham: Mar 17, 2009; You giving me the cold shoulder? How cruel.; Grimey Drawer

But if a black teen gets stalked and shot that's on him.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 10:31

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Hey guys *dog whistle* let me tell you about how *louder dog whistle* not racist I am. Like I'm all about freedom for *increasingly shrill, obnoxious dog whistle* everybody! *dog whistle begins to rattle the cutlery* But see, some people just have a poor *dog whistle is replaced by an unbearably loud air horn* time preference so it's their own fault if they suck. America is a *air horn becomes a fog horn and the neighbors call the police* perfect meritocracy after all and nobody gets to benefit from having rich parents *fog horn somehow begins to spout racial slurs* or anything like that. All schools are exactly the same because *slurs begin to drown out all other noise* if somebody goes to a bad school they can just go to the library afterwards. But that won't do them any good because a job would *nothing else can be heard over what appears to be a mix of racially insensitive words and farting obliterating all other sounds*

*fog horn somehow begins to poo poo itself*

*somewhere a watermelon gets hosed*

# ? Feb 11, 2016 10:41

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

Wolfsheim posted:

Are you guys seriously surprised that jrode is as ignorant of the Middle East as he is economics/medicine/everything else? I almost wonder why it hasn't come up sooner.

Since he's not going to answer anyone's questions anyway I almost wish he would just start posting about random things just to see how wrong he gets it. Like, jrode's guide to making a PB&J sandwich ends up with the peanut butter on the outside of the bread and the jelly thrown in the trash.

What have I said about the Middle East is ignorant? I don't think I've said much at all, if only because I have a suspicion that we'd have much to agree on and I tend to focus on the things I think we'd disagree on the most.

But allow me to say a few words on the Middle East, at least in relation to US foreign policy and let's see what we can agree on and what we won't. I find it to be nigh impossible to evaluate the problems that exist in the Middle East, whether it be the rise of ISIS and radical terrorism, geopolitical instability and the behavior of dictators without considering the constant role of United States meddling into the internal affairs of these countries and their cultures for decades.

I believe that a responsible policy that the United States should undertake immediately, is to start to disengage militarily from the Middle East. Remove all troops and contractors from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and every other country in the region and permit the self determination of each sovereign land. In the short run, there might be an escalation of violence. But we ought to allow moderates in the region to try their hand at fighting ISIS and/or confronting and reforming their corrupt governments.

We cannot pretend to be the worlds policemen and we should allow Muslims who actually live in the Middle East the opportunity to work out their own problems unmolested for a few decades and see how things shake out. Provided there is no direct threat to US National Security, it is frankly none of our business what sort of conflicts rage on in that part of the world.

Furthermore, it is incredibly important that we recognize the work of Robert Pape. Are you familiar with that name? He is an accomplished political scientist that compiled a comprehensive study and database of every single instance of suicide terrorism in the world from 1980 to today. He presented his findings (among other places) in his book "Dying to Win: The Strategy Logic of Suicide Terrorism":

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380

The findings support what Ron Paul, and many others including a substantial number of academic Leftists, have been saying about the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States. What Pape found is that the overwhelming motivation for suicide terrorism was simply foreign military occupation. An occupied populations grows very resentful of a foreign nation with a foreign culture imposing its will upon them and their people and they strike back any way they can.

What Pape finds also, is that when the foreign power removes its troops, bases and overall presence from the foreign lands of the "terrorists", the attacks stop completely. Contrary to Neo-conservative and Neo-liberal mythology, people are generally NOT willing to sacrifice their life, abandon their family and launch an attack on a foreign land for some vague difference in religious or cultural values. Despite what Marco Rubio might want you to believe, no Muslim is going to launch an attack on the United States because we let women vote and go to college.

Even Osama bin Laden made his motivations for the 9/11 attacks crystal clear, but the American people couldn't hear over the deafening war propaganda that was propagated though the major media in the wake of those terrorist attacks.

Nevertheless, we need to heed those warnings about the motivation of those that would do us harm. If we would take away the motivating factor that encourages people to join radical groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, we would make Americans much safer and do more to prevent terrorist attacks than anything else.

Bin Laden said that it was Bill Clinton's policy of sanctions on Iraq which caused the death of some 500,000 women and children who were denied food and medical care and the continued occupation in Saudi Arabia, which they considered "holy land". Madelain Albright famously said that the cost in human life from the Iraq sanctions was "worth it". This sound bite was played and re-played in the middle east for years and served as a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.

There will no doubt continue to be internal problems in the Middle East just as there has been for centuries. But clearly decades of military intervention by the United States haven't improved the quality of life for the Arab populations who live in that region and it certainly hasn't made Americans any safer. In fact, it has drained our resources and made us far less safe as we create more terrorists than we kill and create great resentment towards us by those who live there.

Our military policy, including the drone strikes and regime chance operations continually undertaken by the Obama Administration practically guarantee more and more terrorist attacks against Americans in the future.

The American voters think that these politicians are keeping us safe by "taking the fight to the terrorists", talking tough and dropping bombs, but in fact they are putting these same people in needless danger.

This is what I'd want a presidential candidate to say, because it is the unvarnished truth. There is mountains of empirical evidence behind it (see the aforementioned Robert Pape and his studies).

Yet, since Ron Paul retired from Congress, there hasn't been a single political figure that I am aware of and certainly nobody currently running for president who is making this argument.

Even Bernie Sanders doesn't make this argument. Yes, he voted against the Iraq War and good on him for that. But he continually voted for each and every appropriations bill that kept the war funded, and he supports continued drone strikes against supposed "terrorists" (never-mind all the civilians killed by mistake) and talks tough about taking the fight to ISIS, not once mentioning the motivations for terrorist attacks against us.

I am hoping many of you will agree with me on this point at least. Even those who don't agree with him on much, concede that Ron Paul made an important and pivotal contribution to our political discourse by opening speaking about the motivations for suicide terrorism and asking the eminently sensible question "how would we like it if a foreign nation did to us what we do to them?"

# ? Feb 11, 2016 10:46

Kthulhu5000: Jul 25, 2006; by R. Guyovich

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

What do you think about this post? From the Jrod quarantine thread.

*snip*

I think it does a good job laying out the contemporary history behind libertarianism's intertwining with some pretty awful political elements. I agree that for the average Joe and Jane, appeals to libertarian ideology provides a masking veneer to more blatant sentiments and does try to serve as an end-run around government power. Conversely, of course, it may also serve as a prerequisite to compel the government to act a certain way. I don't think most of the groups you mentioned are really that committed to libertarian sentiment or ideals, so much as they're just really pissy about taxes and welfare and undeserving minorities and poor moochers.

It's basically in line with that graphic that's been posted in these threads, where libertarians predominantly fit a general demographic of being white, middle-class, youngish men who overwhelmingly seem to vote Republican in the end anyway. Libertarianism does two things for them by being a political philosophy that provides a sense of intellectual rigor to the base motivations behind their bellyaches, while also being more of an intellectual preen and "hip" deflection from the staid, boring, and decidedly killjoy monolith of traditional conservatism."We're not haters, we're just principled!" and all that. Generally speaking, I think any group that cites the US Constitution, or gets nitpicky about regulations and founder intent, isn't really that deep into libertarianism despite all protestations to the contrary.

That said, my broader point was on what I believe to be the kernel of genesis to libertarian ideology, and also its much-desired end state (perhaps in the long game sense).

I think that maybe it's something we don't look at, or that we forget to acknowledge. Like, it seems as if much of the ideological basis we operate in (from a US perspective at least, and perhaps the broader West in some facets) is that the philosophical and social thoughts and institutions of medieval European feudalism were cleanly cleft and chopped apart by the Enlightenment, the rise of capitalism, the French and American revolutions in the 18th century and the European turmoil of the mid-19th, the writings of Marx, and so forth. What was left from the medieval period was either relief at it being dead and buried under progress, or silly romanticism. Yet the residue remained, partly due to that romanticism; some of the original US colonies (South Carolina, at least, I'm pretty sure of) were founded to be replications of the old nobility tradition in England, complete with titles. Southern plantation life was very much in the lord/serf model (though, of course, the enslaved peoples were viewed as literal property rather than vassals or whatever), and this persisted in the sharecropper model. We also see the company town in this vein, and the rise of wage slavery instead of the more generalized bonds of serfdom.

So while the medieval model didn't necessarily go into hiding, or survive intact, it's not as if the autocratic drive that marks lords, kings, and the like was stamped out. If we parallel the development of civilization with that of more liberal values, then that has been the norm for centuries, if not millennia. I believe that we shouldn't ever forget that, or grow complacent about it.

This isn't to say that Ron Paul and his ilk literally want to wear gold crowns and ermine coats and sit on thrones receiving and dispatching orders by falcon (at least, I don't suspect as much), but I suspect they want a society based around an aristocracy, with them being the aristocrats - or at least, the lords and/or bureaucrats of it all. And certainly, in Atlas Shrugged, we see the modern incarnation of the deserving god-king in all the industrialists and lone geniuses that the world revolves around. So absent any sort of egalitarian society and government that is supposed to represent everyone regardless of status or creed, they believe their true merit will naturally shine through. Maybe through money, maybe through gab, maybe through people realizing their oh-so-obvious wisdom. They will be blessed with the wealth and power that is otherwise being deprived to them by weaklings / moochers / takers / inferior people using the power of a government to go against the natural state of affairs. And I think this spills over into all that "dark enlightenment" / HBD / whatever alt-right nerd nonsense, albeit in a more explicit monarchical fashion (because, LOL, loving nerds).

Just world, baby - the virtuous are being held down, and the undeserving are being propped up, so we need to clear the table and then let natural law sort it out. Strangely, this sorting never seems to factor in that a gaggle of Silicon Valley geeks does not stand good odds against raiding rednecks, veteran Crips, or an army of rioting, disaffected suburbanites. Maybe we should develop the "Kalashnikov test" for philosophies and ideologies - what policies and ideas, when practiced, will generally prevent the most people from shooting other people with AK-47s? If your philosophy has no concrete measures to keep that from happening, then it fails the Kalashnikov test and will probably fail in real life, too. I can't help but suspect that anything Jrod or the "thinkers" he claims represent his views would fail the Kalashnikov test, myself...

# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:05

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

It's weird - Libertarians are so obsessed with state violence and the use of force/aggression, but are strangely silent when it comes to economic coercion. To them, it's merely a conscious choice or "ethnic time preference" to work minimum wage jobs and are confused (or worse, give tacit approval of) when you bring up things like income inequality or poverty traps as things that exist.

The poor just choose to be poor, therefore it's their fault for being poor and losers in the free market.

Hmmmm...

We're only "silent" because you haven't read the literature to have a fuller picture of the libertarian position on workers rights and other economic matters. It's humorous how you throw in the word "ethnic" when mentioning "time preference" as if the entire concept of a time preference in economics was dreamed up as a way to discriminate against minorities. Time preference is a part of virtually all human choices and a correct understanding of the phenomenon illuminates many otherwise obtuse economic phenomenon. There is a reason that when you get a loan you are expected to pay interest on the loan. Everyone prefers the use of money and scarce resources now rather than the use of the same amount of money or the same resources sometime in the future. So if I voluntarily part with some money I saved or a scarce resource I acquired for several months or several years, then I obviously don't have the ability to use those resources while you are using them. The only way this makes sense is if you pay me an interest for the loan. People will abstain from consumption in the present if they stand to get more resources or money in the future by putting those resources to use or lending them out.

What do you mean by "economic coercion"? Let's not play loose with words and definitions now. "Coercion" actually has a definition. Suppose I go up to you and say "hey, I've got a job offer for you. It pays $6 an hour. Will you accept it?"

Explain how this is coercion. I don't think you'd ever accept this offer because you, if you are employed, are probably making much more per hour than the $6 I'd offered you so you'd never seriously consider my offer.

Unless, there are some side benefits to taking on the job that would compensate you for accepting a lower wage. Or maybe you'd take it on as a second job to get another mark on your resume and connect with more people and learn different skills.

Or perhaps you could be offered a low wage in place of what otherwise would be an unpaid internship? In such a case, the main reason for taking the job is that you'd learn very valuable skills that will in the near future help you to apply for a job which pays many times that much?

There are jobs that are not hiring at present. Abolishing the minimum wage would allow you to make a lowball offer to a potential employer. You could say "I know you are not hiring at present, but I want a chance to prove my worth for a six week stint. I just ask $5 an hour compensation and after the six weeks is up, if I have proven my value, I'd like to apply as a full time worker making the market wage for this type of work."

You are not permitted to do this under today's law. How could these voluntary choices ever be considered "coercion"? This would require a perversion of language. Coercion is almost a synonym for "aggression" and voluntary economic contracts cannot, by definition, be aggression.

There are many libertarian authors who have written extensively about how, in a genuine free society, there will be many more economic opportunities available for people and it will be MUCH more feasible to start a business for yourself or with a number of colleagues. Without occupational licensure requirements and other regulations, opening a business and selling your services on the market becomes a much more viable option.

And even if you don't go into business for yourself, the very fact that so many more OTHER people will be able to, will create millions more jobs who will all be competing for good laborers and so your choices as a wage earner will expand substantially.

The idea you are proposing that millions of lower-class people will be somehow "coerced" into take very low wage employment because they literally have no other options is really a fallacious scenario that is unlikely, or far less likely than in any State-run alternative, to exist in a truly free society.

Nobody said the poor choose to be poor. But there are two types of poor people. There are those of reasonably sound mind and body who are capable of working and acquiring the skills necessary to earn a decent living on the market. Some of these people were unfortunate enough to be born into poverty, or to a broken home, or some other unfortunate circumstance. For others it is a result of a temporary fall from middle class due to either bad luck, or drug problems or whatever the case may be.

For these people, there is clearly hope and the ability for them to acquire the skills to earn a reasonable standard of living. For these people, society (by which I mean communities, churches, mutual aid societies, charities) should focus on helping these people to find good employment, or help them get the training necessary to find good employment.

The second class of poor people is much smaller, but the prognosis is much less optimistic. There are those people who have a significant mental or physical handicap which renders them unable to earn much on the market due to a low productivity that is unlikely to get better regardless of how much training they receive. These people are likely to need some sort of ongoing help in some capacity.

There is a moral, but not a legal, obligation for people to help out these truly desperate people who have mental disability or handicap so severe that their employment prospects are very slim. I sincerely think that everyone who is able should have an occupation of some sort, even if they are not able to earn as much as someone without any significant limitation.

But ongoing help for this small number of poor who genuinely need it on an ongoing, not temporary, basis is the obligation of mutual aid societies, charities, communities, churches, neighborhoods, and so forth.

In a very prosperous society, having the resources to take care of the mentally and physically handicapped and others unable to acquire significant marketable skills would not be a significant issue.

And if you want to talk about a "poverty trap" there is none more fiendish than the Welfare State which has trapped people into a cycle of poverty and dependency. Politicians brag about the number of people on the doll and never about the number of people they help gain their independence and the ability to sustain a middle class living without outside assistance.

Poverty-aid in a free society would be focused on helping people find employment and move up into a comfortable middle class existence so they no longer require charity, rather than encouraging people to remain dependent on hand outs for long periods of time.

I sincerely don't think that a compassionate person, if they are familiar with the facts, could honestly support the Welfare State when they understand the sort of harm and perverse incentives it creates for those unfortunate enough to be dependent on them.

Humans ARE capable of taking care of their fellow man without State aggression. For whatever reason, peoples imaginations have been castrated by the media and public schools into thinking social progress and social welfare can ONLY come about through politics. Politics, in my estimation, is precisely what is holding society back and entrenching these social problems.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:25

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

How do we define "politics," Jrode? Would you not say that - for instance - a decision that we will abandon what appear to be semi-natural (not to get too :biotruths:

) networks of kin support and mutual obligation in favor of enclosing the lands and forcing people to be alienated from the fruit of their labor... is political, in that it involves the exercise of power?

If I am Immortan Joe and I control the water (and can protect it from other claimants due to accidents of geography and my half-life War Boys) - do I not possess political power over the wretched masses below, even though there was no "voting" involved? Perhaps you are using the term "politics," not as a descriptor, but as a way to try to de-legitimize the exercise of certain forms of power which you personally disapprove of?

If humans are so capable of taking care of their fellow man, how did socialists get started? Evil ~~judaic~~ mind control devices? Corrupting the morals of good ~~aryan~~ peasants with things like city life and jazz music? Or perhaps the socialists were a reaction to suffering, to the excesses and abuses of capitalism - even if you may disagree with their program or their methods, they surely were not some satanic irruption into the holy works of the market.

As for economic coercion, let's have a thought experiment. You are trapped on a piece of land because I have purchased all areas around it, sealing you in. I have no interest in allowing you to trespass on my property in order to cross to another zone. Eventually your supply of tactical bacon and Ramune runs low. I offer you an exciting proposal after you've shed a few dozen pounds -- "I've got a job offer for you! Sign yourself into permanent servitude and I'll guarantee you I'll feed you a bland but nourishing diet and provide basic shelter and clothing!" Or perhaps "Give me your land, and I'll give you this big bowl of delicious food!"

Where is the coercion in this example, jrode? Surely we are all just freely engaging in a market exchange. You would have the right to refuse my bid. Or, in principle, to contact others, perhaps with telepathy or radio signals, in order to rescue you... but of course, they would have to cross my land to do it, meaning you would be initiating aggression, which is a big no-no.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:50

Twerkteam Pizza: Sep 26, 2015; Grimey Drawer

HHH posted:

quote:

quote:

jrodefeld posted:

quote: