|
Pieces of Peace posted:I'm going to assume we're referring to Ferengi. Yeah, guests sign a standard waiver when entering someone else's home, and also have to pay. All doorways and offices have little piggy banks where it's expected people pay to come in for each service.
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:00 |
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:We figured all this out a long time ago, but libertarians insist on starting from scratch. This is a really good point. Libertarians will discard millennia of development of law and society and discard it as the state being evil. Because, since the answers are logic and flow from reason, we don't need precedent to figure them out. They're entirely self-evident.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
It is fundamentally not about solving real problems so much as a moralistic pretext for restructuring existing institutions to be compliant to the demands and prerogatives of the richest and most privileged. Well, even more so than now.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It is fundamentally not about solving real problems so much as a moralistic pretext for restructuring existing institutions to be compliant to the demands and prerogatives of the richest and most privileged. Well, even more so than now. Ah yes, the "Starting... Now!" doctrine
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Ah yes, the "Starting... Now!" doctrine Look, it would be really hard to actually provide restitution for the past injustices which have made for an uneven playing field, I mean how are the descendants of slaves supposed to prove in court that they are entitled to random bits of southern land?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, guests sign a standard waiver when entering someone else's home, and also have to pay. All doorways and offices have little piggy banks where it's expected people pay to come in for each service. And yet they have moral objections to genocide, cigarettes, and literal slavery. Clearly the Ferengi are insufficiently rational actors.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Pieces of Peace posted:And yet they have moral objections to genocide, cigarettes, and literal slavery. Clearly the Ferengi are insufficiently rational actors. I got the impression that their position on cigarettes was impressed respect and a mourning for whatever went wrong between then and now to cost humanity its potential.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Look, it would be really hard to actually provide restitution for the past injustices which have made for an uneven playing field, I mean how are the descendants of slaves supposed to prove in court that they are entitled to random bits of southern land? And of course restitution can only ever be some loving parcel of land somewhere
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I got the impression that their position on cigarettes was impressed respect and a mourning for whatever went wrong between then and now to cost humanity its potential. The Ferengi were horrified by the idea that humans would so happily and expansively sell literal loving poison and market it like it was awesome. Their view is that dead customers aren't capable of making you profit so you keep your customers alive. If memory serves this was why their medical technology was top notch. Yeah they were greedy as gently caress but they considered keeping their customers alive and happy enough to keep coming back the highest priority. Which is very different from American capitalism; Ferengi generally played the long game and really, really liked stable, long-term profit while American capitalism is "make this quarter's number better at all costs." The Ferengi were portrayed as a bit of an odd paradox. This was also why they failed to be villains even though there were meant to replace the Klingons. There really wasn't anything all that threatening about them and they weren't keen on picking fights because you can't sell anything to somebody you just killed. Nobody really trusted them and they weren't benevolent but they were predictable and relatively easy to deal with. If dealing with you was profitable they'd be all over it. You just had to read the fine print.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:And of course restitution can only ever be some loving parcel of land somewhere I can see where they were coming from.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I'm told that when there were border conflicts between white settlers and natives in what's now Ohio and Pennsylvania, the natives would at times take captives and satisfy their constant hunger for land by cramming it down their throats until they strangled. I've heard similar tales of the Central Americans pouring molten gold down captured conquistadors' throats to quench their thirst for gold. Might just be after-the-fact revenge fantasies though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Golbez posted:When does it become kidnapping? When they lock all the doors? When they lock the most convenient door but allow egress through another? When they lock all the doors except the most inconvenient one? Or is it only when they physically restrain the person? It becomes Stinky_Pete posted:I get the impression that libertarians end up deciding reasonable exceptions or context-sensitive markers or concepts to codify the calculus of aggression, but they basically just end up (poorly) re-inventing the common law that's been developed by Anglo-French courts over a period of centuries. It's how we got concepts such as the "attractive nuisance," which puts the onus on owners of e.g. dangerous/unstable structures that look like an awesome playground to a child, to bar entrance in some way. Or if you're a restaurant owner taking up a slot in a place that is conveniently located for commerce, you are providing a "public accommodation" that has to meet certain expectations which would otherwise have to be negotiated with, or explained to, each individual customer before they enter for the NAP to work.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:54
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It becomes Let's throw in a legal term that gets lawyer's collective panties in a wad: reasonable. A libertarian invites you into his home, but locks the front door and says you can't leave, but does not physically restrain you. Would leaving the back door unlocked be considered reasonable means of escape? So if the back door was unlocked, but the owner made no pretense as to it being locked or unlocked, and you left the house forcibly, who is entitled to compensation; you or the owner? If all the doors were unable to be opened, and the mile long poo poo pipe was the only means of escape, and the owner informs you that you can leave through the poo poo pipe; is this reasonable accommodation? If I decide to leave forcibly instead of wading through poo poo, is the owner entitled to compensation for damages? If the owner did not inform me of the availability of the poo poo pipe for escape, but it was available nonetheless, is this still a reasonable means of escape? Would I have to compensate the owner if I left forcibly? If the libertarian told me I could not leave, and all of the doors were unlocked, yet I still left in a forcible manner; is the owner entitled to compensation? Common law states that under all of these scenarios the owner would not be entitled to compensation. Why? Because, using something called the reasonable person test, merely telling someone they cannot leave can be interpreted by any reasonable person to be a threat of violence. Whether all of the doors are wide open with no barricade or restraints preventing me from leaving doesn't even factor into it. The owner telling me that I'm not allowed to leave means that he has threatened violence (even if only perceived violence), broken the law, and he has forfeited any claims to compensation for damages I may cause in my attempts to escape. You can pretend to be Mr. "Cool as a Cucumber I'll try the back door first" because you don't understand the situation and have never experienced a threat of violence like this first hand. It is perfectly acceptable, that a reasonable person, given no information about means of escape (or even if they are plainly told about the poo poo pipe) may use any and all means of escape, up to and including lethal force against the owner. You want to think everyone will act rationally in a situation like this, but when "fight or flight" kicks in, nobody thinks rationally. You probably even think you're somehow morally or intellectually superior for thinking of using the back door. But you're not. You're just a smug rear end in a top hat. And it becomes false imprisonment/kidnapping the moment the owner tells me I can't leave, regardless of whether the doors are open, closed, locked, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:you don't understand the situation and have never experienced a threat of violence like this first hand. You are mistaken. Your mistake aside, the back door thing is about resolving things non-violently if possible, whether or not legally I'm in clear to use violence. But of course benefit of the doubt goes to the one being detained and if another way out doesn't seem viable for whatever reason, they're presumed innocent. Like I said, if it's poo poo pipe (or some other bad thing) versus violence, then I'd fight. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 04:22 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The Ferengi were horrified by the idea that humans would so happily and expansively sell literal loving poison and market it like it was awesome. Their view is that dead customers aren't capable of making you profit so you keep your customers alive. If memory serves this was why their medical technology was top notch. Yeah they were greedy as gently caress but they considered keeping their customers alive and happy enough to keep coming back the highest priority. Modern US capitalism with all remaining restraints removed would have made for much more interesting and dangerous Ferengi.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Golbez posted:... "We pride ourselves on simple, logical answers, so there must be one" is fallacious. Just because it would be nice/cool/good/whatever if X existed/was true/whatever does not mean that X therefore does exist/is true/whatever. And yes, it's more complicated than that. Here's a general phrase to get you started: In a finite world, the limit of any particular right of any particular individual is that exact same right when applied to other individuals. I don't know that this is universally true, but it's true enough that it's always going to be a problem in any society you care to dream of except for an infinitely infinite one. For example, I've heard it put forward that one cannot be forced to do business. After all, if it is your property, what right does anyone have to, say, force you to sell your goods to this person? Except..hasn't that person earned his money? Isn't he free to do what he wants with it? Who are you to deny him your business and place those limits on who he can or cannot do business with? Property itself even works this way. You are only free to own something if it is not already owned by someone else.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:But of course benefit of the doubt goes to the one being detained and if another way out doesn't seem viable for whatever reason, they're presumed innocent. Hopefully the
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You are mistaken. Your mistake aside, the back door thing is about resolving things non-violently if possible, whether or not legally I'm in clear to use violence. But of course benefit of the doubt goes to the one being detained and if another way out doesn't seem viable for whatever reason, they're presumed innocent. Like I said, if it's poo poo pipe (or some other bad thing) versus violence, then I'd fight. The problem with your response is you are treating this as some kind of logic puzzle wherein you try to do 'X' without doing 'Y'. This misses the point of the issue brought up and becomes Monday morning quarterbacking about how best to implement the NAP. The question is, at what point does my initiating violence, such as busting out a window to escape, become valid, and at what point does the owner/captor forfeit any claims to compensation for any damages I inflict on his property. Under common law and the reasonable person test, the mere threat of imprisonment is enough to invalidate all claims made by the captor. Human rights over property rights. But libertarianism and ancapism reduce human rights into property rights. So who's property rights trump who's, why, and can this exception be applied broadly or only in this narrow example? Is there a condition in which the opposite would be true, and why?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:But libertarianism and ancapism reduce human rights into property rights. So who's property rights trump who's, why, and can this exception be applied broadly or only in this narrow example? Is there a condition in which the opposite would be true, and why? The right of self-ownership is usually the trump-everything right, so someone who has tried to lay claim to you has violated that right. You are allowed to kill that person to reassert that right. Unless you signed a contract. I am not being flippant.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Actually it's not necessarily true that you can respond with lethal force to all violations of your self-ownership-derived rights, there is a principle of proportional response which follows from *drops smoke bomb, ollies out*
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Actually it's not necessarily true that you can respond with lethal force to all violations of your self-ownership-derived rights, there is a principle of proportional response which follows from *drops smoke bomb, ollies out* Assuming the typical quality of libertarian philosophy, I'm guessing it goes something like this: "proportional response" assumes that an outside standard has the right to judge how you defend your self-ownership, which is itself an abrogation of the right of self-ownership. In practice, if you want "proportional" anything in a libertarian society, you'd have to pay for it. A poor black person may be shot on sight, at any time, by private security if they judge him a "threat". Two rich white dudes in a car accident go to court. No rights but property rights. Justice is not a right, but a commodity like everything else.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Crossposting from the IoSM thread because it's too good not to:
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Crossposting from the IoSM thread because it's too good not to: 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Also relevant:  Libertarianism is the rare modern ideology that isn't hostile to child sexual abuse. The 5,000 flavors of leftism all attempt to address, in various ways, oppression, exploitation, abuse, etc. These things require, implicitly, an understanding of power dynamics and the nature of consent. Even a shallow understanding of these things leads to the obvious conclusion that child sexual abuse is bad. Conservatism, too, opposes it, given its dislike of pornography in general and opposition to degeneracy. Hell, conservatives keep trying to tie homosexuality and Satanism to pedophilia—it’s an obviously-evil thing to get people riled up. Libertarianism, on the other hand, is all about freedom. Freedom freedom freedom. An obsession with property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle, to the neglect of everything else, leaves massive holes in its moral framework—holes big enough to drive a million windowless vans offering free candy through. This is made worse by the fact that libertarians barely understand their own NAP. The NAP requires a solid understanding of consent to even begin to function, and unfortunately, “What even is consent?” and “Under what circumstances does ‘yes’ not constitute consent?” are questions that libertarians rarely, if ever, discuss. Go ahead. Go to any online gathering place of libertarians, and search for "consent". You'll learn two things: (1) libertarians put almost zero effort into understanding the Non-Aggression Principle (hint: you need a robust understanding of consent for it to work at all) and (2) these people really wanna gently caress kids. The philosophy backing the NAP is so lacking that it's functionally worthless as an ethical guide. This leaves the only thing they actually care about : property rights. Libertarianism is a one-trick pony, and unfortunately the pony is also rock-stupid and the trick is total poo poo. Witness, this libertarian talking about the sexual exploitation of children like it were a free market achieving equilibrium:  See what I mean? (If you have the stomach for it, that entire Reddit thread is a goldmine of shitbiscuit libertarians.) When non-libertarians talk about raising children, moral obligations towards children are commonly brought up. Meanwhile, libertarians (the zealous ones, who don’t immediately spy the problem and carve out an exception for children in their ideology) rapidly devolve into positions like “children are literally property belonging to their parents and have no rights” (the basis for the above comment screenshot) or “children are just tiny adults and can totally give consent”. To be fair, the majority of libertarians are not in favor of pedophilia/child porn/child sexual abuse. But a disproportionate number of those who do favor such things use libertarian logic to justify it. Because as I said, libertarianism is the only ideology that isn’t immediately hostile to them.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:The philosophy backing the NAP is so lacking that it's functionally worthless as an ethical guide. This leaves the only thing they actually care about : property rights. Libertarianism is a one-trick pony, and unfortunately the pony is also rock-stupid and the trick is total poo poo. Witness, this libertarian talking about the sexual exploitation of children like it were a free market achieving equilibrium:  Hm, yes, good point, loving an animal is exactly the same as slaughtering it as painlessly as possible. Literally no differences at all.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:When non-libertarians talk about raising children, moral obligations towards children are commonly brought up. Meanwhile, libertarians (the zealous ones, who don’t immediately spy the problem and carve out an exception for children in their ideology) rapidly devolve into positions like “children are literally property belonging to their parents and have no rights” (the basis for the above comment screenshot) or “children are just tiny adults and can totally give consent”.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:You know the old saying, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." I'm sure libertarians would reconsider their positions on child-rearing if humans could reproduce by masturbating to anime. Woah woah woah back the gently caress up Just because someone jacks off to anime doesn't automatically make them a libertarian I want to be very clear about this
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Just because someone jacks off to anime doesn't automatically make them a libertarian I want to be very clear about this True. They might be a Trump voter. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:To be fair, the majority of libertarians are not in favor of pedophilia/child porn/child sexual abuse. But a disproportionate number of those who do favor such things use libertarian logic to justify it. Because as I said, libertarianism is the only ideology that isn’t immediately hostile to them.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Someone recommended The Baffler earlier in the thread and I went to check it out. It's good. quote:Wearing her rose-tinted glasses, Sharma peers at a cottage-industry foundry that turns out brass belt buckles, and sees “poor men willing to destroy their lungs.” Here in Dharavi, no know-it-all bureaucrat interferes with the common people’s free choice to slowly kill themselves by not insisting that bosses provide respirators. As the author explains, “Workers [don’t] complain because in their own way, everyone gains something from this situation.” In this libertarian fantasia, safety gloves are for saps. edit: Seriously people, read the article. It refutes the whole "we have no examples of Libertarian society" pretty drat well. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 01:58 on May 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Libertarians don't give a gently caress about liberty, only about property. All their vaunted liberties they brag about supporting are just elaborations on "nobody can tell anybody what to do with their property".
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Nope sorry motherfucker you're a pedophile and that by definition makes you the loving monster. When the loving werewolf winds up in a dracula convention by a comic mishap the fact that all those draculas are monsters doesn't change the fact that he is also one.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Feinne posted:Nope sorry motherfucker you're a pedophile and that by definition makes you the loving monster. When the loving werewolf winds up in a dracula convention by a comic mishap the fact that all those draculas are monsters doesn't change the fact that he is also one. As I understand it the author there is a person who has sexual attraction to minors but who has not consumed child pornograpgy nor has he abused a child in any way. So... What exactly do you expect him to do. Studies have shown that paedophilia has a strong biological component (they are way more likely to be left handed) which means you are essentially condemning a man not only for thought crime, but also for a thought crime that results from no choice on his part.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
The truth is that all left-handed people are pedophiles, and we should begin purging the lefties immediately
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The truth is that all left-handed people are pedophiles, and we should begin purging the lefties immediately I always thought they were sinister.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Caros posted:As I understand it the author there is a person who has sexual attraction to minors but who has not consumed child pornograpgy nor has he abused a child in any way. I mean he really doesn't have a win because he's either expected to police his own sexual attraction to minors with effectively no help from society or he's expected to fail to do so and abuse a child. Monster jokes aside I agree that pedophiles who have not actually committed any crimes should be much more free than they are right now to actually admit that fact because stigmatizing them and isolating them from society is counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
I always get uncomfortable when this conversation comes up. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Feinne posted:I mean he really doesn't have a win because he's either expected to police his own sexual attraction to minors with effectively no help from society or he's expected to fail to do so and abuse a child. Monster jokes aside I agree that pedophiles who have not actually committed any crimes should be much more free than they are right now to actually admit that fact because stigmatizing them and isolating them from society is counterproductive. That's one hell of a walk back from where you started. YF19pilot posted:Under common law and the reasonable person test, the mere threat of imprisonment is enough to invalidate all claims made by the captor. Human rights over property rights. What major libertarian figures reject common law? Like, Ron Paul or similar? I don't feel a need to and if anything the libertarian problem with common law is going too far with it as a ward against centralized control (e.g. sovereign citizens/freemen on the land). I'm skeptical that common law, which has its roots in feudalism, can't be generally parsed in terms of property rights and/or self-ownership.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:Someone recommended The Baffler earlier in the thread and I went to check it out. It's good.  They call the Washington Post, the Milton Friedman Preservation Society
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:00 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:That's one hell of a walk back from where you started. Why would there only be one common law? F.A. Hayek proposed that a true free market would have competing fiat currencies, so it stands to reason that there would be competing bodies of law. This is a common failure of the libertarian imagination: the idea that a libertarian society would be just like ours, except freer and cheaper. But if everything is property, then every property exchange is a market—a free market. Anything goes. (That article is particularly funny in light of the explosion of cryptocurrencies post-2010. The "commodities" backing them are painfully thin smokescreens over what are, fundamentally, obviously fiat currencies. It turns out, in practice, nobody except crackpots and professional economists gives two shits about the source of a currency's value. People'll use it if it's convenient to do so.) While I'm on the subject, again, libertarians have very poor imaginations and are ironically so steeped in "statist" ideas that they uncritically accept many state artifices as natural. In this case, the gold standard. Precious metals-backed currency has historically been the tool of states. Societies without state-mandated currencies didn't necessarily settle on a single commodity. Hell, one of the earliest records of government intervention in the economy is the Code of Hammurabi. Do you know what "currency" pops up over and over again? Code of Hammurabi posted:239. If a man hire a sailor, he shall pay him six gur of corn per year. loving grain. Money is also mentioned frequently, but it's clearly not the only currency used. The Mises Institute has an article on ancient economic regulations, by the way. It's adorable. It was posted in 2009 but doesn't cite a single source more recent than 1973. Glad to know our understanding of history's been static for the last 40 years. Praexology doesn't care about the real world, except when it does posted:[In] Ancient India... it is not known exactly how these price and wage regulations worked out in practice, but it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the end results were similar to what happened in Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, China, Greece and other civilizations. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 07:23
|
|