|
Juffo-Wup posted:No, it is not our responsibility to frame your argument for you. If you want to adopt a position on political philosophy, then get to it, because so far you've avoided this like the plague. If you somehow disbelieve me when I claim I would defend Nozick's theory of justice, we have two options: first, you could test your belief by challenging it, in which case I could either defend it or not; or you could, well, not. Juffo-Wup posted:I'm sorry, but your definition is wrong. 'Valid given the premises' doesn't make sense, because validity as a concept is already about the relation borne between a set of premises, a set of inferences, and a conclusion. You still haven't said anything about the truth of the premises, which is what you need to establish soundness.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:There can never be such a thing (historical proof). Find me repeated failures, that's a trend though. (I'm not saying you won't, I'm saying, that's the form of evidence that matters.) SeaStead has yet to even get off the ground (or I guess away from the ground, since the plan is to build a floating concrete island in international waters) but I have no doubt it will fail stupidly. Here's a choice quote from a supporter, taken from here. Some Libertarian posted:... "How will we handle self-defense? Why, we'll just buy stuff from arms dealers with all the fabulous wealth we'll have! The market will provide!" That is it for Libertarianism. The market fixes everything. As to the building collapses, libertarianism considers building codes an intrusion by government on the rights of the property owner. Are they state failures? Sure, I suppose. They're also libertarian success stories. People who are seriously gung-ho about libertarianism strike me as potentially being crackpots and at least being ignorant by definition in the same way that people who believe in an earth-centered model of the solar system would/do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Same as in my post; also see Merriam-Webster or Wikipedia (with 7 further links) or Lenin's definition in State and Revolution. You very clearly did not read even the Wikipedia page, although I can buy that you looked it up at M-W.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:If you somehow disbelieve me when I claim I would defend Nozick's theory of justice, we have two options: first, you could test your belief by challenging it, in which case I could either defend it or not; or you could, well, not. Okay, here's a caricature of one of Nozick's arguments: 1.) Any principle of distributive justice describes a pattern of the ideal distribution of goods. 2.) But liberty demands that we do not prevent the free exchange of goods. 3.) If we do not prevent the free exchange of goods, then the ideal pattern of goods distribution will quickly be violated. 4.) So to maintain the ideal pattern of distribution, we have to continually violate liberty 5.) But the violation of liberty isn't just 6.) Therefore any state of affairs that is reached by just transformations of an initially just state of affairs is itself just. Here's a response: (5) is an ad-hoc conflation of Justice and liberty in order to get the desired conclusion. There is no a priori reason to assume that Justice requires never violating liberty (as Nozick has defined it). If (5) is false, then (6) doesn't follow and the argument is unsound. Edit: actually invalid as well. What follows from (1)-(5) is not (6), but rather a straight denial that justice is actually possible to achieve over any appreciable amount of time. To get (6) we need some extra premises that a.) Insist that any reasonable definition of justice must allow for the possibility of a just society, and b.) Provide a redefinition of the term to make it fit the inference to (6). Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Like, I occasionally stumble across something Ron Paul or Ayn Rand or Herman Hoppe or Tea Party people or whoever wrote, and it always strikes me as various degrees of insanity. I don't find that at all interesting, intellectually speaking. But Nozick... quote:What we have in the real world right now seems on cursory glance more like a few loosely related cults than coherent political movements. Just a timely reminder for everyone: This all began with some mealy-mouthed pseudo-apologia for the (as-yet undetermined) "meaning" of atrocious people and movements labeling themselves socialists regardless of whether they really are. quote:I also read post-WW2 anti-totalitarian writers - particularly Popper and Berlin - and while they're not particularly libertarian, they're close (e.g., Popper, Mises, Friedman and Hayek co-founding the Mont Pelerin Society, Hey this sounds familiar...
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:SeaStead has yet to even get off the ground (or I guess away from the ground, since the plan is to build a floating concrete island in international waters) but I have no doubt it will fail stupidly. Here's a choice quote from a supporter, taken from here. So what happens if those arms dealers sell you guns that don't work? What happens when you try to get your money back, and instead they point their guns at you and say "no", and then steal all your poo poo instead? Oh, right, that happens. Or let's just skip to the second part, what happens when they point their guns at you and steal all your poo poo just because they can?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm not sure what you mean, but I am not using a particularly leninist interpretation of socialism. I am using the definition given by Merriam-Webster, Wikipedia, my Apple dictionary, UD.com, and every other dictionary you can find. But do you not see the weakness of the definition you are providing in actually clarifying a discussion concerning the various socialist political movements, parties, and organizations along with the actual tools and objectives of socialist politicians, especially those that must operate inside the boundaries of liberal democracy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
fade5 posted:
Let's not be absurd. That would violate the NAP!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Hm ... yup, I looked it up. You're right, I meant valid. Sorry. Thinking about it, I want to address this too; validity comes pretty cheap, and defending someone's argument as valid is very nearly damning with faint praise. Here is an example of a valid argument: 1.) If Obama is a reptilian, then he is a member of the Illuminati. 2.) Obama is a reptilian. 3.) ∴ Obama is a member of the Illuminati. Here is another: 1.) Libertarianism is correct. 2.) ∴ Libertarianism is correct. In fact, all the informal fallacies are formally valid. You just don't get much mileage out of validity alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Damning with faint praise seems to describe his whole MO. "It means something... I don't know what, but something!" "Only broadly, sure, but that's not that bad!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:You very clearly did not read even the Wikipedia page, although I can buy that you looked it up at M-W. Juffo-Wup posted:Okay, here's a caricature of one of Nozick's arguments: quote:To maintain a pattern one must either continually interfere to stop people from transferring resources as they wish to
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Damning with faint praise seems to describe his whole MO. As I just said: it seems to me Libertarianism in action is at worst comical. (And I guess, at best, too.) archangelwar posted:But do you not see the weakness of the definition you are providing in actually clarifying a discussion concerning the various socialist political movements, parties, and organizations along with the actual tools and objectives of socialist politicians, especially those that must operate inside the boundaries of liberal democracy? E: Reflecting on it, I guess it is possible that this is changing, and that currently, with Sanders appearing, socialism undergoes another change in meaning. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
It's also possible that appealing to the dictionary and Wiki loving Pedia is a baby bullshit move for chumps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Fine with me. Yes, people starving to death in the streets and getting maimed in industrial accidents is just hi-laurious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's also possible that appealing to the dictionary and Wiki loving Pedia is a baby bullshit move for chumps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Well, I was trying to give Nozick the benefit of the doubt. As you've rendered it, the argument depends on the premise that a state of affairs is just if it is the result of just transformations from an initially just state in order to establish the conclusion that a state of affairs is just if it is the result of just transformations is an initially just state. Which is just what theories of distributive justice deny. That argument is question-begging, which, fine, is a valid argument form, but is not very convincing. Or maybe you think the 'partial slavery' argument is the important premise: (PS): To take a portion of someone's earnings is to retroactively have caused them to work without compensation, which is a kind of slavery. Strictly, PS is false. If we take half of Wilt Chamberlain's million dollars, then it follows that he was compensated 500k for his work, which is not the same as zero. But you might still want to divide his work into labor hours, and then calculate the number of hours for which he was not compensated. But even in that case, when you buy something, the seller takes a portion of your earnings and does not thereby make you a slave. So here's a revised premise: (PS*): To take a portion of someone's earnings, unjustifiably, is to retroactively partially enslave them. But now see all the work here is being done by the word 'unjustified.' So to tell where the principle applies we have to already have a theory of justice, which is what is at issue. Again, to simply insist that the principle gets applied the way Nozick wants it to is question-begging. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's also possible that appealing to the dictionary and Wiki loving Pedia is a baby bullshit move for chumps. I think the definition given at the top of the Wikipedia page is reasonably serviceable, which is how you know he didn't actually read it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What would a pro move be? Vindicating your definition with reference to the history - intellectual and practical - of the subject. There are other disciplinary approaches, sure, but you seem very fond of history so we'll go with that. In any case, this requires you to "know things," which seems to be a significant and recurring stumbling block for you. For example, if you actually believe that Marxism is "rather well defined" compared to the "heterogenous cluster concept" of libertarianism, you are simply not equipped to make claims about the nature of socialism. Doubly so if you are on any level conceiving of "Marxism" as some kind of stand-in for socialism rather than one among many ideas about (among many other things) socialism. In this light, it makes sense for you to fall back on dictionaries and online references: this is the typical practice of desperate undergrads who don't care much about the subject of the papers they have to write and so go with the least effort-requiring substitute for developing actual knowledge. In other words, it's a "baby bullshit move," except as far as I know, passing a gen ed requirement doesn't ride on your posting here, so I'm not sure what the point is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I think the definition given at the top of the Wikipedia page is reasonably serviceable, which is how you know he didn't actually read it. I'm not categorically against using Wikipedia for anything. It's just very telling when someone appeals to the authority of the dictionary and Wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What would a pro move be? Taking an actual position and not your usual wishy-washy cowardly bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Well, I was trying to give Nozick the benefit of the doubt. As you've rendered it, the argument depends on the premise that a state of affairs is just if it is the result of just transformations from an initially just state in order to establish the conclusion that a state of affairs is just if it is the result of just transformations is an initially just state. Which is just what theories of distributive justice deny. Juffo-Wup posted:your might still want to divide his work into labor hours, and then calculate the number of hours for which he was not compensated Juffo-Wup posted:But even in that case, when you buy something, the seller takes a portion of your earnings and does not thereby make you a slave. Juffo-Wup posted:(PS*): To take a portion of someone's earnings, unjustifiable, is to retroactively partially enslave them. quote:To take a portion of someone's earnings against their consent is to retroactively partially enslave them. So you can attack his theory of justice. Again: A state D2 is just if it fulfills two conditions: It originates from state D1 through the cyclic application of rules of just transfers, where 1. D1 is just, 2. just transfer is either 2a man ”mixing" his time and talent with nature, 2b people exchanging goods in a consensual manner 2a is probably uninteresting, 1 is totally up to you (Nozick allows, for the sake of the argument, a socialist society). So the key is 2b, or the lack of a 2c, both of which Nozick objects against on Kantian grounds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
never mind this is all about a disingenuous hypothetical
Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I think the definition given at the top of the Wikipedia page is reasonably serviceable, which is how you know he didn't actually read it. GunnerJ posted:Vindicating your definition with reference to the history - intellectual and practical - of the subject. There are other disciplinary approaches, sure, but you seem very fond of history so we'll go with that. In any case, this requires you to "know things," which seems to be a significant and recurring stumbling block for you. For example, if you actually believe that Marxism is "rather well defined" compared to the "heterogenous cluster concept" of libertarianism, you are simply not equipped to make claims about the nature of socialism. Doubly so if you are on any level conceiving of "Marxism" as some kind of stand-in for socialism rather than one among many ideas about (among many other things) socialism. In this light, it makes sense for you to fall back on dictionaries and online references: this is the typical practice of desperate undergrads who don't care much about the subject of the papers they have to write and so go with the least effort-requiring substitute for developing actual knowledge. In other words, it's a "baby bullshit move," except as far as I know, passing a gen ed requirement doesn't ride on your posting here, so I'm not sure what the point is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Great, perfect! Now you are defending NAP/consent-based libertarianism (which is something, I'll remind you, you explicitly denied earlier), which is precisely what the bulk of this thread has been dedicated to discussing. If you want to know why people might think consent is generally a bad guide to justice, start at page 1 and let us know when you catch up. Edit: oh, wait, maybe not, because of course you're only saying the argument is merely valid, which means you can get out of the implication that you had said anything false by now claiming that you never intended to actually endorse any of the premises, only their logical relation! If so, *yawn* Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:If you have a better case, you will have to be both respectful and specific, not rude and vague. He/She doesn't actually have to be respectful to you at all, Cingulate. Anyone doing so is simply being polite in the hopes of having a decent conversation instead of whatever the hell it is you've been doing over the past few pages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Great, perfect! Now you are defending NAP/consent-based libertarianism (which is something, I'll remind you, you explicitly denied earlier), which is precisely what the bulk of this thread has been dedicated to discussing. If you want to know why people might think consent is generally a bad guide to justice, start at page 1 and let us know when you catch up. This again seems to go from 1. me defending a philosophical principle as valid, to 2. me personally advocating a specific policy based on that. How can this happen after I've repeated stuff like any deviation from social democracy requiring good justification I had not seen so far, me not believing in the concepts of desert or personal property, or me not believing in the soundness of Libertarianism as an applied philosophy? Like, we somehow go from "here is a theoretical argument about what justice is" to "we now need to explain to you why you should really not vote for Rand Paul", right after I said I'd vote for Sanders. Juffo-Wup posted:Edit: oh, wait, maybe not, because of course you're only saying the argument is merely valid, which means you can get out of the implication that you had said anything false by now claiming that you never intended to actually endorse any of the premises, only their logical relation! If so, *yawn*
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:If you have a better case, I'm not making a case. I'm giving you advice. quote:you will have to be both respectful and specific, not rude and vague. You're seriously telling others not to be vague? Haha, gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Someone please post a mises.org article so we can talk about that instead of going around in circles like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Right, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I was not actually a Libertarian in disguise all along; rather, everything I claimed to believe was true all along. Juffo-Wup posted:That's a lot of words to write without actually adopting a position. Edit: Who What Now posted:Someone please post a mises.org article so we can talk about that instead of going around in circles like this. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I'm not making a case. I'm giving you advice. And to give good advice, you would still have to be precise and respectful, actually. I am absolutely clueless about what you were going for here. Did you secretly hope that even though I said all the time I'm not a libertarian, and won't defend it as an applied policy, I secretly would admit to doing just that?.. That when I said I consider Nozick a coherent argument given premises I personally reject, I was secretly accepting his premises? I don't get this. Alas, I think discussing Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument is about as on topic as this thread could be. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Well, I am using a clear definition (e.g., socialism being social ownership over the means of production) ; you are vaguely insinuating it is bad (and I am stupid). Here's some good advice then: please respectfully stop making GBS threads up the thread with your non-arguments. It's been pages of you not having the balls to stake out an actual position worth debating and people trying to get you to do so and failing. So either poo poo or get off the pot. With all due respect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Well, I am using a clear definition (e.g., socialism being social ownership over the means of production) ; you are vaguely insinuating it is bad (and I am stupid). False, I am being very specific about the reasons why your methods for justifying your definition are amateur hour poo poo. Additionally, I am not saying that you're stupid, but I am saying that you're ignorant, which is not the same thing as stupid. quote:And to give good advice, you would still have to be precise and respectful, actually. Since I am being precise, I will only explain why giving good advice does not require being respectful. For example: one can write out good advice and then intersperse "you dumb motherfucker," and "which you'd know if you weren't a shithead," etc. throughout the text of it without making the advice any less useful. Nobody cares about your hurt feelings and tone trolling. Your passive aggressive bullshit about how no one can "get" your poorly explained, ever-shifting non-point has made me really uninterested in the level of respect you think you're owed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I am absolutely clueless Clearest, most concise and accurate thing you'd posted so far. And even then I had to trim it down to essentials. You've been alternating between "I'm just a neutral seeker of wisdom, recognizing valid points wherever they may rise" while contributing nothing, and just dropping out assertions backed by nothing ("Real world libertarianism would be that bad, it's not like we have examples of private institutional cruelty like the Belgian Congo or sharecroppers or company downs to derive from! At its worst, it would be comedically wacky!") So yeah, I'm done. Have fun playing your 'eel swimming through a tub of KY' game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Well, I am using a clear definition (e.g., socialism being social ownership over the means of production) ; you are vaguely insinuating it is bad (and I am stupid). Cingulate, are you aware that "public" and "social" are not synonyms? So your definition has changed. The first one -- "public ownership" -- was a clear definition, but one that specifically excluded e.g. syndicalism, and was therefore dumb. "Social ownership" can be construed more broadly, but it is not a clear definition for that exact reason. As to your tone policing, I respectfully invite you to go copulate with your mother.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Hey Cingulate, you're aware that Galt's Gulch is an entirely fictional example, right? Like even the guys who tried to set one up in Chile appear to have foundered on the grounds of "We're incompetent and possibly out to steal money"? So if we're going to introduce Galt's Gulch as some kind of proof of anything, I would like to enter the United Federation of Planets as an argument for socialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Man, why did it take me so long to notice that red text?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Man, why did it take me so long to notice that red text? Eh, I think whoever gave him that misunderstood the logic of D-K. It's more applicable to jrod than Cingulatus Taediosus imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Well, whatever it gets wrong in the details, it seems pretty accurate in spirit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Well, whatever it gets wrong in the details, it seems pretty accurate in spirit. Seriously, just put him on ignore. He used to spur interesting discussion. That stopped a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:Fine with me. Typically, libertarianism in action is a human rights disaster, an environmental catastrophe, and/or economically disastrous. There's nothing funny about that. I'd agree with your "at best", but throwing "at worst" in there implies that libertarianism is harmless, which is only true most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 22:09
|
|
