|
Goon Danton posted:I think the SA one is the guy's morning routine that involves picking which private sewer company to use that day and the mad max commute. Yeah that's the one that opens with him sipping chicory while marveling over the wonders of the free market and ends with him as warlord of an emaciated scavenger clan in the wasteland.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:You seem to be presupposing the legitimacy of wills in a discussion about the legitimacy of wills. A guy has a contract with the executor that says "upon my passing, all my stuff goes to this guy, so that he may distribute it according to my wishes." My point is that once the dude is dead, it isn't his stuff anymore. At the moment of expiration, he ceases to have any property rights. If he hasn't given away his stuff before he dies, why shouldn't his property be treated as abandoned? Huh, you're right. I was taking for granted that an AnCap society would be well functioning. For a group that enshrines personal property, you would think maintaining chains of custody, or whatever, would be a core tenant. Ddraig posted:I figure this is the best place to ask but does anyone have a link to that thread with the story of the Libertarian private detective etc? Probability Broach?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Huh, you're right. I was taking for granted that an AnCap society would be well functioning. For a group that enshrines personal property, you would think maintaining chains of custody, or whatever, would be a core tenant. This is the thing you have to see through to see the real madness of an ancap society. Ancaps always describe DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations, for the uneducated  ) as though they're just arbitration companies - perfectly genteel folks who get the two disputing parties in a room and help them resolve their dispute as per an agreement to use that DRO signed by both parties. This seems reasonable until you realize - what is holding them back? See, DROs also provide police services. That is, one-sided contracts - the criminals are not freely agreeing to resolve a dispute with their victims through the services of the DRO, the customer is buying an open-ended contract against anybody who meets specific conditions (such as "stole my stuff"). At least some of the DROs are quite heavily armed organizations, and their legitimate functions (insofar as they are "legitimate" in an ancap society) involve the use of force against people who are not their customers. How long can even the most virtuous DRO go before the fact that every situation they are involved in provides opportunities for warlordism and profiteering twists them into bandits, or mafia, or, at best, liege-lords?Okay, you say, but surely the competition between them will keep this in check somewhat. If a DRO is too out of line they're gonna be brought down by the Freedom & Liberation Squad DRO, which is made up exclusively of ACLU members who undergo futuristic brain scans every week to make sure they are truly dedicated to the idea of justice. Okay, so if the "good" DROs have enough power to resist the corrupt ones, at best you have a continuous low-level death squad presence that is made up of the corrupt DROs doing business and the counter-squads from the ACLU DRO, at worst you have a civil war. Or...worst of all to an ancap...the ACLU DRO definitively wins and establishes a monopoly of force. You know. A state. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:You seem to be presupposing the legitimacy of wills in a discussion about the legitimacy of wills. A guy has a contract with the executor that says "upon my passing, all my stuff goes to this guy, so that he may distribute it according to my wishes." My point is that once the dude is dead, it isn't his stuff anymore. At the moment of expiration, he ceases to have any property rights. If he hasn't given away his stuff before he dies, why shouldn't his property be treated as abandoned? Ceasing to have property rights after death is your own assumption, and I suspect that most ancaps would disagree with it. (What's the point of libertarianism, after all, if you can't amass dynastic wealth?) In any case, there's nothing inherent to ancapism that makes this a contradiction. As for treating property as abandoned, it's clear that there must be some grace period of disuse, lest I be able to come homestead your house as soon as you leave for work. e: Another way to say this is that it's fine to presuppose legitimacy of wills, since all of ancapism is based on a series of presuppositions with no coherent basis. Showing that one more presupposition may be required doesn't do much, unless you're arguing with someone who explicitly states a position contradictory to that assumption. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Hahahahahhgggghhh  "Science is controlled by political economies" said the gobshite crackpot writing for a publisher of gobshite crackpots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:e: Another way to say this is that it's fine to presuppose legitimacy of wills, since all of ancapism is based on a series of presuppositions with no coherent basis. Showing that one more presupposition may be required doesn't do much, unless you're arguing with someone who explicitly states a position contradictory to that assumption. It's fine to treat ancapism as basically handwavey bullshit, since it usually is, but I'm trying to tease out the implications of the philosophy as derived from first principles, which means looking at it from a jrodian "that which does not violate the NAP is generally permitted" perspective. If the dead still have property rights that can be infringed, the question is from whence these rights arise. Inasmuch as they seem to be customary and "positive" rights, they may not fit within an ancap framework at all, and that's amusing. Mornacale posted:As for treating property as abandoned, it's clear that there must be some grace period of disuse, lest I be able to come homestead your house as soon as you leave for work. I think ability and intention are the key factors. A dead person neither has the ability nor the intention to come back for the property they left behind, and as this is not open to question, the property of the dead has been abandoned about as thoroughly as anything can be abandoned. There are lunar rovers that haven't been touched for almost half a century that are less abandoned than the house a guy owns five seconds after he croaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Yeah that's the one that opens with him sipping chicory while marveling over the wonders of the free market and ends with him as warlord of an emaciated scavenger clan in the wasteland. That story should have been the plot of Fallout 4
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:It's fine to treat ancapism as basically handwavey bullshit, since it usually is, but I'm trying to tease out the implications of the philosophy as derived from first principles, which means looking at it from a jrodian "that which does not violate the NAP is generally permitted" perspective. If the dead still have property rights that can be infringed, the question is from whence these rights arise. Inasmuch as they seem to be customary and "positive" rights, they may not fit within an ancap framework at all, and that's amusing. It's fine to try to work out the issues from first principles, but what prevents those first principles from including something like "property rights include the ability to determine how to dispose of the property"? For example, I think that most people consider the right of bodily autonomy to extend to the disposition of your eventual corpse; if all property is essentially an extension of your body, then it follows that a will must be followed as well. That's not to say that a hypothetical ancap couldn't just as easily start with the assumption that all contracts are void when one party dies. But absent an actual person with an actual ideology to discuss with, how do you determine which set of assumptions are the "real" first principles?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:It's fine to try to work out the issues from first principles, but what prevents those first principles from including something like "property rights include the ability to determine how to dispose of the property"? I'm talking about actually looking at the axioms (self-ownership, NAP, etc.) as laid out by jrod, mises.org writers, etc. It's possible to "fix" this problem by adding another axiom at the end of the list, but since I've never seen that argued specifically, I am going by what I've actually seen. I mean, "what if the opposing side claims a position they've never been seen to claim?" is a weird attitude to take. quote:For example, I think that most people consider the right of bodily autonomy to extend to the disposition of your eventual corpse; if all property is essentially an extension of your body, then it follows that a will must be followed as well. The question is whether such a right is a natural right, or a customary right. A right based on custom and not derived from the basic moral axioms can ethically be ignored. If an ancap wants to take the position that bodily autonomy extends after death, that would require an argument of its own, it's not to be assumed. If anything, since bodily autonomy for libertarians is generally based in the idea of self-ownership, and there's no "self" to self-own when one is dead, the presumption should go the other way. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Terminating contracts with the death of one of the parties has some pretty obvious problems. If I sign a contract with you for immediate delivery to you in exchange for payment next week, and you die tomorrow does that mean I don't get paid? Life insurance policies or death benefits are a similar sort of thing: if death voided all contracts then those could never pay out because the contract and the consideration was with the deceased and not the beneficiaries. In the real world we solve these issues by creating a fictional person, the estate, which can sue for money owed and be sued for debts, with an executor who has a fiduciary duty to direct the estate's affairs in accordance with the deceased's wishes. But I'm not sure how these fictional persons or anything like them can be derived from, say, praxeology which claims that a person's enlightened self-interest can only be determined by observing his/her actions. Inheritance is just sort of tacked on there in an ad hoc way without justification. On the other hand you have someone like Hoppe who doesn't bother with praxeology and derives inheritance using some remarkable circular reasoning: being born into a wealthy family is proof of genetic superiority, and genetic superiority entitles you to free wealth in exact proportion to the amount of money daddy has. This is also the inner narrative of all other types of Libertarians, even if their outer narrative is something like praxeology or homesteading or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
The first principle that I usually see raised above all others is self-ownership. Homesteading is just the desperate attempt to create a ruleset that allows "I own myself" to become "therefore I can own things that are not me". This logic of "self-ownership, therefore property" is questionable at best, and as far as I can tell, operates on loving magic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Self-ownership, therefore if I gently hump a grapefruit for long enough, it becomes a part of my self and I own it. ~homesteading~
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Homesteading theory arose as a post-hoc justification for stealing land from Native Americans and killing them if they refused to leave, nothing the Native Americans were doing counted as mixing labor with the land, not even farming or grazing flocks or building houses because if you were "uncivilized" (read: non-European ancestry) then it magically happens that whatever you're doing with your land isn't homesteading it's denying the white man his God-given opportunity to homestead.Walter Block posted:It is by no means clear that the Indians are the rightful owners of anything like the entire United States. Under libertarian law, they could justly claim only those parts of the land that they homesteaded, or occupied, not hunted over. They owned those paths that they used to get from their winter to their summer places. This is based on the Lockean-Rothbardian-Hoppean homesteading theory. I estimate that they owned, in this way, at most 1 percent of the land in the United States.[3] Hmmm sorry natives, only the white man can own large estates for hunting or grazing. You owned 1% of the USA oh btw if we stole it and didn't give you a receipt too bad your testimony isn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I figure this is the best place to ask but does anyone have a link to that thread with the story of the Libertarian private detective etc? well we did have the autistic prive eye... http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636034
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Homesteading theory arose as a post-hoc justification for stealing land from Native Americans and killing them if they refused to leave, nothing the Native Americans were doing counted as mixing labor with the land, not even farming or grazing flocks or building houses because if you were "uncivilized" (read: non-European ancestry) then it magically happens that whatever you're doing with your land isn't homesteading it's denying the white man his God-given opportunity to homestead. lol, "Lockean," hmmmmm!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
If you own a lot of land do you have to go and stick your dick in every square inch of it on a regular basis? I didn't know property barons had it so hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you own a lot of land do you have to go and stick your dick in every square inch of it on a regular basis? the answer, actually, is sort of yes,* though not necessarily because of Locke in related news, i just poured a can of homemade soup into the ocean, so all the rest of you assholes can just get the gently caress out *e.g., adverse possession and other qualifications on modern** property rights ** old school property rights were way more limited VVVV sorry, looks like you wanted a response in terms of an-cap; the above is based on current property law concepts, except my now-legally-valid ownership (current property law concepts notwithstanding) of the Atlantic ocean Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
How does Walter Block justify inheriting the land-loving of your parents? I'm pretty sure most landowners don't work their land any more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you own a lot of land do you have to go and stick your dick in every square inch of it on a regular basis? You buy slaves to do that, come on now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You buy slaves to do that, come on now. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
What's interesting is that under Hoppe's formulation conservation is completely impossible, for any reason. Be it enjoyment, or sustainable hunting, or research, or even just plain necessity for the survival of the human race there is no way to morally prevent someone from strip-mining or slash-and-burn or dumping toxic waste into your fishing grounds. You could prove scientifically to arbitrary amounts of certainty that we need X acres of tropical rain forest or we have to leave Y barrels of oil in the ground to survive as a species and it would still be BP's god-given right to exploit anything we don't want to. Anything less would mean we'd have to admit that Native Americans got a bit of a raw deal and wealth didn't come about because of a just world, better the whole species go extinct than face such a chilling thought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How does Walter Block justify inheriting the land-loving of your parents? I'm pretty sure most landowners don't work their land any more. Basically? You can do whatever you want with your property, including giving it to whoever you want. The debate over whether a will is a valid contract can go here, but never gets brought up. GunnerJ posted:lol, "Lockean," hmmmmm! They namedrop Locke a lot, but they have to be super careful about quoting him, because his original theory comes with a disclaimer that sort of blows the whole loving thing up now that everything out there is owned by people (who we recognize as people).
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Basically? You can do whatever you want with your property, including giving it to whoever you want. The debate over whether a will is a valid contract can go here, but never gets brought up. Yeah but like, even if a will is valid, if your heir does not then go and gently caress the dirt a bunch, they presumably have no claim on the property, if property is determined by dirt loving. Dirt loving as a method of claim is sort of understandable, almost a Marxist understanding of personal versus private property, but dynastic dirt loving doesn't make sense. "My dad jizzed all over this lot so I have a right to it forever" doesn't hold true with the idea that if the native Americans weren't occupying the land right this second then they didn't own it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Dirt loving is just the way to establish ownership of unclaimed land. Sloppy seconds are only required if the land becomes "obviously abandoned." Who makes the call as to when that abandonment occurs? It's simple: asking hard questions is a violation of the NAP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Dirt loving as a method of claim is sort of understandable, almost a Marxist understanding of personal versus private property, but dynastic dirt loving doesn't make sense. "My dad jizzed all over this lot so I have a right to it forever" doesn't hold true . . . . this is a pretty funny and vivid way to summarize some of the notions that underlie the key points of Capital v 1, actually
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Dirt loving is just the way to establish ownership of unclaimed land. Sloppy seconds are only required if the land becomes "obviously abandoned." Who makes the call as to when that abandonment occurs? It's simple: asking hard questions is a violation of the NAP. Well yes libertarianism is a stupid ideology that makes no sense but I just feel compelled to point out that it's extraordinarily silly to suggest in the same paragraph that not immediately working the land qualifies it as up for grabs except for if
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What's interesting is that under Hoppe's formulation conservation is completely impossible, for any reason. Be it enjoyment, or sustainable hunting, or research, or even just plain necessity for the survival of the human race there is no way to morally prevent someone from strip-mining or slash-and-burn or dumping toxic waste into your fishing grounds. You could prove scientifically to arbitrary amounts of certainty that we need X acres of tropical rain forest or we have to leave Y barrels of oil in the ground to survive as a species and it would still be BP's god-given right to exploit anything we don't want to. One of Rand's heroes in Alas Shrugged set fire to his oil wells (creating a "liberty torch") before loving off, to demonstrate this very point, lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Terminating contracts with the death of one of the parties has some pretty obvious problems. The contract ends at the point of death but you would still, theoretically, have to pay up for things up to your death; that's why estates exist and why they can be sued after you died. Part of what an executor does is sort out all the bullshit to figure out what you owed and to who as well as what your last wishes were. I don't think even the hardcorest ancap or lolbert would argue that all contracts you signed immediately became void when you died for exactly the reasons you say. Inheritance (and this is why they scream   DEATH TAXES!!!!! so loudly) is a mix of "I will set up my offspring as well as I can" and "all of this is mine so I can do with it as I please." Ultimately we obviously can't live forever as individuals but we can create legacies through dynastic wealth and power. Granted this doesn't jive well with the supposed meritocracy lolberts want where you can rise and fall based on your own devices as a big inheritance gives you a huge head start but uh...gently caress.This is actually where libertarianism kind of falls apart. Dynastic wealth is a huge problem and somebody that inherits $100,000,000 is going to have a far easier time than somebody that inherits $100,000 of debt. On one hand forcing everybody to start at the same place makes it meritocratic where those who deserve riches will get them. On the other hand if I have a billion dollars then they'll say it's mine to do with as I please; if I distribute it to my children well hey that's what I wanted to do and it's mine so gently caress you. Guess all you plebs hope they'll find a job for you to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:
The best argument I've heard in favor of "death taxes" is that the government has got to get its money from somewhere and that it's better if it comes from the dead, who have no need of money, than the living, who do. Although I suppose an an-cap or libertarian would argue over whether government should get money in the first place. If taxation is theft that requires Men With Guns to collect, where would a minarchist want a government to get its revenue from?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
White Coke posted:The best argument I've heard in favor of "death taxes" is that the government has got to get its money from somewhere and that it's better if it comes from the dead, who have no need of money, than the living, who do. Although I suppose an an-cap or libertarian would argue over whether government should get money in the first place. Depends on who you ask; fees are the most popular one. Instead of levying taxes you just have the government (if it exists) charge you to use things. That argument then gets into "then you reduce waste by only making people pay for what they use!" This is where the idea of privatizing the roads comes from; those that want the government to go away entirely argue that if you pay for literally everything with fees instead of taxes the government is not necessary. Others argue that we should go back to the 18th century when the government was funded by tariffs and taxes on tobacco and booze. If you don't want to pay taxes then don't import anything, don't smoke, and don't drink. Simple! The best argument in favor of death taxes is actually that it ends dynastic wealth. It's really a genius bit of propaganda; the right has convinced middle class folks that the government won't let you leave the house to your kids. Which is 100% bullshit; I forget all the details but most middle class folks just don't have enough wealth for the estate taxes to apply to them and even then there are generally clauses all over along the lines of "you can keep your house." Not just there but for bankruptcy and collections as well. Once again I forget the deets but if memory serves one dwelling under a certain value is effectively untouchable. Estate taxes really only affect the ownership class, which most people are not a member of. ...guess which class funds libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
My favorite question about homesteading involves someone coming upon an unsettled planet (or moon or asteroid, etc). Could you build a fence around the equator and then say "I have fenced in the northern hemisphere and thus I own it by homesteading. I have also fenced in the southern hemisphere and own it also"? What about a fence that's a one-foot-diameter circle; it would contain both the "inside" and "outside", so it should make the whole world your property, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
White Coke posted:The best argument I've heard in favor of "death taxes" is that the government has got to get its money from somewhere and that it's better if it comes from the dead, who have no need of money, than the living, who do. Better argument: anyone with any knowledge of basic economics knows that by taxing something, you get less of it. (I read this in the National Review, so I know it to be true.) Since death is generally perceived in a negative light, the sensible thing to do is to crank death taxes up as high as they can go. This is simple, econ 101 stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:My favorite question about homesteading involves someone coming upon an unsettled planet (or moon or asteroid, etc). Could you build a fence around the equator and then say "I have fenced in the northern hemisphere and thus I own it by homesteading. I have also fenced in the southern hemisphere and own it also"? What about a fence that's a one-foot-diameter circle; it would contain both the "inside" and "outside", so it should make the whole world your property, right? The general answer to that is that you can only homestead as much land as you can work. So obviously a billionaire can just hire people to do something over enough of the surface and do exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
White Coke posted:If taxation is theft that requires Men With Guns to collect, where would a minarchist want a government to get its revenue from? There are many answers out there, but they all boil down to "someone other than me."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:My favorite question about homesteading involves someone coming upon an unsettled planet (or moon or asteroid, etc). Could you build a fence around the equator and then say "I have fenced in the northern hemisphere and thus I own it by homesteading. I have also fenced in the southern hemisphere and own it also"? What about a fence that's a one-foot-diameter circle; it would contain both the "inside" and "outside", so it should make the whole world your property, right? You must mix your
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Better argument: anyone with any knowledge of basic economics knows that by taxing something, you get less of it. (I read this in the National Review, so I know it to be true.) Since death is generally perceived in a negative light, the sensible thing to do is to crank death taxes up as high as they can go. This is simple, econ 101 stuff. And if we had a regressive income tax where all income under one million dollars was taxed 100% then everyone would be a millionaire. If taxes can make people work less then they can also make people work harder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:
This isn't a problem when all children are removed to state-administered creches and never know who their biological parents are, imho
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
The track record of institutional caregiving as a substitute for parents is pretty atrocious, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:The track record of institutional caregiving as a substitute for parents is pretty atrocious, though. The obvious answer is to privatize it. Businesses can bid on babies and raise them however they see fit. Parents, being totally rational actors, will most certainly understand that the highest bidder wants to make a return on that investment and will have the child's best interests at heart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
This problem, like all problems, can be solved with robots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:17
|
|
