|
absolem posted:Because you can hand your kid the deed to your house, you can't hand them culpability for the 13 small children you murdered. you can't transfer that sort of thing? care to tell me how that would work? besides you could just not take the house Someone steals your stereo, turns around and hands it to the guy next to him for $1. Suddenly it is no longer your stereo, and the guy next to him has no culpability?
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
natetimm posted:You're a young, white anarcho-capitalist that thinks 300+ million people currently occupying land they believe to legally own should be uprooted and forced out to satiate your dumb idea of fairness over poo poo that happened hundreds of years ago. Are you aware of the humanitarian crisis that would come from giving the land occupied by 300 million people back to less than 5% of that? Look, we can resolve this historical contradiction with my conception of property rights in one of two ways: literal ethnic cleansing and the displacement of millions of now-destitute people; or raising taxes to fund social programs, education, and infrastructure for Native American communities. I think we know which one is the greater evil. Infrastructure and taxes! 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
From whence do property rights come from?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
absolem posted:Because you can hand your kid the deed to your house, you can't hand them culpability for the 13 small children you murdered. you can't transfer that sort of thing? care to tell me how that would work? besides you could just not take the house Even if you happen not to live on a patch of land not previously owned, which is unlikely, a good deal of the products you own can be tracked back to where they are derived and, by your own philosophy, you are morally culpable for not returning those products. Did you buy fruit this week that was grown from California? You stole it. Send it back to the Mexican government. Is your house made of lumber that came from trees grown on land that was once owned by a native tribe? You stole it. Tear your house down and send the lumber back. Are you posting from a computer with parts made in Texas, assembled in China, and designed by the Japanese? Return it. The land those parts come from, the lands in which they were assembled, and the land in which the ideas leading to their creation were developed on were all stolen. Wait a minute. This doesn't make any sense. It's almost like the logic that led to these ends is ridiculous and unworkable.  Edit: Grammar, I'm dumb Shibby0709 fucked around with this message at 01:12 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Look, we can resolve this historical contradiction with my conception of property rights in one of two ways: literal ethnic cleansing and the displacement of millions of now-destitute people; or raising taxes to fund social programs, education, and infrastructure for Native American communities. Sometimes I kind of feel like the Native Americans are playing the long game with their casinos. Eventually they're going to own a big chunk of what was stolen back anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
I think you'll agree that forgiveness is the only solution. Unfortunately forgiveness is a double-edged sword. Forgiveness of debts throws the world into chaos and is an ultimate disrespect of property rights in favor of squatter's rights. If you want fair starting conditions for your new system, why don't you just carve up all the land and wealth equally and give everyone an equal share? If the last system was corrupt, then you won't want its main beneficiaries reasserting themselves and gathering up their old wealth, so you'll have to do something to prevent that. Probably something unethical.
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Shibby0709 posted:If even happen not to live on a patch of land not previously owned, which is unlikely, a good deal of the products you own can be tracked back to where they are derived and, by your own philosophy, you are morally culpable of returning those products. It's insane and untenable on the large scale, but by god the OP is a man of his word and he said if he found out everything he owned was stolen according to his own definition (it is) then he would return it. Godspeed OP 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's good to hear. Hopefully, though, you will humour me for a little bit, then. I would argue there are two important pillars that any good moral theory must rest on: The Personal and The Practical. If you disagree, feel free to let me know, and to propose counter points as to what makes a moral theory worthwhile, but I think these points are fairly uncontentious. While I like the criteria you've set up, you move into truth in the middle nonsense. To the best of my knowledge, an ancap world (with all the realistic flaws) would be fantastic. Implementing it could get messy, but I'm comfortable with a gradual transition towards freedom. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see similar institutions as we have now show up in new Free as in Freedom™ forms. One of the nicest things about my beliefs are that they are objective. I mean, there is objective-ness in so many other areas, why couldn't I have it here? More than maybe anything else, the idea that there is no rational way to proscribe morality terrifies me. Ancap-ism seems to be pretty ballin', especially since nothing else seems to even remotely work, IRL or in theory.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
absolem posted:While I like the criteria you've set up, you move into truth in the middle nonsense. To the best of my knowledge, an ancap world (with all the realistic flaws) would be fantastic. Implementing it could get messy, but I'm comfortable with a gradual transition towards freedom. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see similar institutions as we have now show up in new Free as in Freedom™ forms.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Someone steals your stereo, turns around and hands it to the guy next to him for $1. Suddenly it is no longer your stereo, and the guy next to him has no culpability? why are you even here? at least the other people berating me are largely intelligent...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
absolem posted:One of the nicest things about my beliefs are that they are objective. I mean, there is objective-ness in so many other areas, why couldn't I have it here? More than maybe anything else, the idea that there is no rational way to proscribe morality terrifies me. Ancap-ism seems to be pretty ballin', especially since nothing else seems to even remotely work, IRL or in theory. This is so wrong that it's hilarious. Are you so far up your own rear end as to be blind, are you an autist, or is it a different failing of the human brain? Nessus posted:What is objective about property rights? Yeah, property rights has subjective definitions.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:This is so wrong that it's hilarious. Are you so far up your own rear end as to be blind, are you an autist, or is it a different failing of the human brain? Opinion is taught as fact depending on where you decided to go into debt for the rest of your life at.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
absolem posted:To the best of my knowledge, an ancap world (with all the realistic flaws) would be fantastic. Wait wait, what? In the last thread, you admitted that your ancap world had no solution to the problem of a wealthy monopsonistic employer (or a few local wealthy employers in collusion) hiring private armies like the Pinkertons to initiate force against their workers. Raskolnikov38 posted:"My laborers are heading to work at another plant? Better give Pinkerton a call." absolem posted:Which would involve force, which ought to make that employer anathema haveblue posted:Literally all the employers in your area do that and you don't have the personal resources to relocate. Now what? absolem posted:Just start walking OR, cry How is this a wonderful utopia if wealthy landowners can hire private armies to rule the locals by force? That sounds hellish to me  Oh and hey, you never answered my question about why it's okay for you to tell poor people victimized by superior force to move away or quitcherbitchin, but it's not okay for me to tell rich people to move if they don't like the US Government's terrible crime of coercive progressive taxation?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
absolem posted:One of the nicest things about my beliefs are that they are objective. I mean, there is objective-ness in so many other areas, why couldn't I have it here? More than maybe anything else, the idea that there is no rational way to proscribe morality terrifies me. Ancap-ism seems to be pretty ballin', especially since nothing else seems to even remotely work, IRL or in theory. Morality is probably the easiest thing in the world. Humans have built in empathy pathways, they are built into our biology; that is where our morality comes from. If you have to actually stop and think about whether or not something is moral, then you have some serious issues.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
I've been around for more than a few right-libertarian song-and-dance routines and every single one has failed to philosophically prove why property rights are more important than any other right or human construct, especially without coming off as borderline psychopathic.Pohl posted:Morality is probably the easiest thing in the world. Humans have built in empathy pathways, they are built into our biology; that is where our morality comes from. If you have to actually stop and think about whether or not something is moral, then you have some serious issues. Additionally, since the human brain is imperfect and sorta messy, any morality derived from it will be imperfect and messy too. Perhaps the only way to get objective morality out of homo sapiens is to identically genetically rewire every single human brain that exists and will exist. Good loving luck. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 01:32 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
absolem posted:
Furthermore, rational thought is something that is only used for extremely limited functions by people. The vast majority of our decision making is done through heuristics, not rationality.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
I'm going to re-say that if someone proves themselves the rightful owner of something I hold, I will honor their claim. However, at the same time I will demand restitution from the person who sold it to me because they broke their implied contract when they asserted that they had the right to sell it. This whole "theres a theoretical person who might own it because his ancestor who could have lived there might have passed it on to him" thing isn't going to cut it. I didn't steal it, they need to prove the claim, since there's been no ongoing aggression on my part.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ Seriously, this post is exactly what he was talking about. If someone steals your stereo, sells it to another person for $1, and you can't objectively prove this happened with video surveillance then you're poo poo out of luck by your own admission. absolem posted:why are you even here? at least the other people berating me are largely intelligent... He's only taking what you've outlined and take it to its logical conclusion. If you dismiss it out of hand then so too can we dismiss your position out of hand. We already do. 
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 01:37 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
absolem posted:I'm going to re-say that if someone proves themselves the rightful owner of something I hold, I will honor their claim. However, at the same time I will demand restitution from the person who sold it to me because they broke their implied contract when they asserted that they had the right to sell it. This whole "theres a theoretical person who might own it because his ancestor who could have lived there might have passed it on to him" thing isn't going to cut it. I didn't steal it, they need to prove the claim, since there's been no ongoing aggression on my part. But if your parents are dead how are you going to be refunded for the land that they stole form the British Monarchy? Because that land is in perpetuity theirs.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
What I meant earlier is that I would like to think that's true, and I would be really scared to accept a system that doesn't advance that, because having irrational judegements hold sway on whether I'm an ok guy or not freaks me out.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:He's only taking what you've outlined and take it to its logical conclusion. If you dismiss it out of hand then so too can we dismiss your position out of hand. except he was wildly wrong about what I even said, at least most other people are actually comprehending my arguments, this rear end in a top hat was just being almost as retarded as me...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Suppose that you have a glass of water. It's yours. Next to you is me. I am dehydrated and will die without water. Suppose that you decide to not give me your glass of water, as is your right. Is the wrong I then inflict on you by taking it and thereby save my life lesser or greater than the harm that I'd suffer from not having the water? EDIT: the dilemma for absolutism about property tights that follows is an exercise for the reader. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 01:41 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
absolem posted:One of the nicest things about my beliefs are that they are objective. I mean, there is objective-ness in so many other areas, why couldn't I have it here? More than maybe anything else, the idea that there is no rational way to proscribe morality terrifies me. Ancap-ism seems to be pretty ballin', especially since nothing else seems to even remotely work, IRL or in theory. This is the most important and honest thing you've said in this thread. You cling to these ideas because they give you emotional comfort, and I guess it's everyone's right to do so, but to actually try and base a society off of them as if they were objective fact would be as ridiculous as trying to base all property law around the concept of reincarnation because someone happens to believe in it. You need to accept the fact that reason is often subordinate to emotion, whether you're talking about individuals or entire societies, and work on understanding how you're using your own reason to serve your emotional needs. I mean, if you were truly trying to use this as a guide to making decisions, you would be unable to be justified in purchasing anything because you'd never be able to ascertain the original holders of the property rights and the circumstances in which those rights were transferred. As others have said, you'd better not own food, clothes, or computers because I guarantee some of those things were produced under the coercive threat of violence, and anyways you'd better flee on a boat to international waters because the debates between Native Americans and ethnic Celts (usa>england>celts) over the remains of America won't remain non-violent for long. And I'm not trying to be a dick about the "emotional needs," thing, either. I think the pastebin is useful only as a way of pasting a veneer of reason over an often arbitrary world dominated by emotion and amoral self-interest. That's a scary thing, but there are better ways of dealing with it than deciding that the ethical gamesmanship you've turned to should be implemented in real life.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
absolem posted:except he was wildly wrong about what I even said, at least most other people are actually comprehending my arguments, this rear end in a top hat was just being almost as retarded as me... Reread my post.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Morality is probably the easiest thing in the world. Humans have built in empathy pathways, they are built into our biology; that is where our morality comes from. If you have to actually stop and think about whether or not something is moral, then you have some serious issues. But Hobbes said we needed Burger Kings and Dairy Queens to keep the rabble in check because of
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait wait, what? In the last thread, you admitted that your ancap world had no solution to the problem of a wealthy monopsonistic employer (or a few local wealthy employers in collusion) hiring private armies like the Pinkertons to initiate force against their workers. because the hiring of armies to rule by force and taxation involve aggression and are therefore unjustifiable.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:I've been around for more than a few right-libertarian song-and-dance routines and every single one has failed to philosophically prove why property rights are more important than any other right or human construct, especially without coming off as borderline psychopathic. How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... (note, the first bit of that is an actual question)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
absolem posted:How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... What "objective laws of X" do you refer to?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Seriouspost: a good number of the now-leftist posters here were some variation on libertarian in younger days, including an-caps. We're not responding to your ideas because we've already evaluated and abandoned them.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
absolem posted:because the hiring of armies to rule by force and taxation involve aggression and are therefore unjustifiable. You mean like the systematic genocide of native american populations upon who's land you currently live? So what is the take away here then? Make sure you loving kill them all because otherwise you'd have to give it back? quote:Suppose that you have a glass of water. It's yours. Next to you is me. I am dehydrated and will die without water. Suppose that you decide to not give me your glass of water, as is your right. Also, reply to this. I asked you something similar in the US thread and have yet to receive a reply.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
absolem posted:because the hiring of armies to rule by force and taxation involve aggression and are therefore unjustifiable. Okay, but historically factory owners have done just that, and a system that pronounces armed oppression unjustifiable but doesn't stop it seems a lot worse than a government that coerces a bit from me in taxes but at least has the capability and willingness to enforce laws against employers literally enslaving me. What good is your system if it is impotent in protecting me?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
absolem posted:because the hiring of armies to rule by force and taxation involve aggression and are therefore unjustifiable. Who cares if it's unjustified? What are you going to do to stop them?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
I love watching starry-eyed young Libertarians get torn to pieces as long as its in their own special thread 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
absolem posted:How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... Because morality is by its very nature subjective and subject to change. A century and a half ago it was morally okay to own another human being, In places of the world today it still is by the local morals. Morality is what society says it is, which is why you cannot have objective morality despite the fact that you really, really want to. Can it be your morality? Sure but I hope you reconsider because as a former libertarian I know how lovely life is when you look at the world that way. Is it Objectively true? Not at all. Just because you found a path of logic that makes it seem so doesn't mean that there aren't millions of other people using similar logic to prove that their morality is the right one. I could logically prove that a double down is objectively the best food, but that doesn't make it anything but heart clogging garbage. Bacon is good, chicken is good, the Double down has naught but chicken and bacon. What other food has nothing but chicken and bacon? The double down is the best food.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Can your objectively justified bullshit put food in your stomach? Can it put a roof over your head? Can it stop a mugger? Can it stop a bullet?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Can your objectively justified bullshit put food in your stomach? Can it put a roof over your head? Can it stop a mugger? Can it stop a bullet? Uh no, that's why we needs guns. Lot's of guns.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
absolem posted:How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... I assume you refer to scientific laws, but note that the definition includes this: "Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data". It's only objective in the narrow situation in which it remains accurate, and is revised or scrapped if new observations prove it wrong. absolem posted:because the hiring of armies to rule by force and taxation involve aggression and are therefore unjustifiable. Only a tiny percentage of people (~7% I think) are straight right-libertarian and would perhaps agree that taxation is aggression and is unjustifiable. The majority, and this thread, does not therefore your assertion is as convincing as claiming 2+2=5.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
absolem posted:How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... Because the only truly objective laws, are the laws of science* that hold the universe together. Once we derive a scientific explanation for the purpose of life then perhaps objective morality can be determined. *that is to mean the specifics that hold the universe together rather than what we currently know/understand of them. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 01:56 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:Because morality is by its very nature subjective and subject to change. A century and a half ago it was morally okay to own another human being, In places of the world today it still is by the local morals. except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
absolem posted:why are you even here? at least the other people berating me are largely intelligent... You steal some land, leave it to your kid. Your kid knows the land is stolen. How is the kid not in any way liable? How is the land his? Now let's pretend that the kid doesn't know, but the fact that the land is stolen is common knowledge. How does this change the scenario? Edit: And before you accuse someone of lacking intelligence, you might want to do some serious introspection. The scenario I laid out is exactly what you described, only replace stereo with land and $1 with inheritance. If I misunderstood your scenario, then perhaps you did not present it very well? archangelwar fucked around with this message at 01:58 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:55
|
|