|
So your entire ethical philosophy seems to rest on the inviolability of property rights and the objective requirement to define ownership based on first appropriation of land. It would seem to follow that no one in America has the right to the land they own, whether they inherited it from the colonists or bought it, so it looks to me like the only justifiable thing is to either return it or pay compensation to the heirs of the original owners, using every available means to track them down, yet...oddly...you oppose this. Why? Keep in mind that you've already said that no appeal to practicality can justify a violation of property rights. Ever.
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
absolem posted:If someone showed me that something I owned was actually owned by someone else, I would surrender it to them at once and so too should everyone else. That isn't the same as a blanket reparation. Okay, but some historical injustices are well-documented. For example, the territories owned by the tribes forced on the Trail of Tears.  So what if we start with that? Shouldn't all that land be returned to the descendants of those who were displaced by force from it? absolem posted:Not all american land was owned (you can use it and not own it by virtue of not wanting it). Your definition of property rights does not appear to allow for this. Is this an Ayn Rand style "oh but they were savages so they didn't understand ownership of the land they were making a living on" argument or are you really arguing that Native Americans didn't really want their land after all and were happy to hand it over to white people pointing guns at them? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:06 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
absolem posted:Many tribes had no concept of ownership Wait, but this doesn't matter, according to you. What matters is that they were using the land (and they were) and that they didn't want to leave. quote:Over external resources (we have already determined that exclusive use is inevitable and that violence is unjustifiable), we only have to determine how we know who owns what. Subjective (subject-dependent) norms have some difficulties – two individuals could consistently make a claim to the same resource and both be “right” (and wrong) at the same time, because these claims have no logical justifications (they’re just based in subjective preferences). So only objective claims are justifiable, and the only objective claim that is justifiable is that a resource belongs to whoever first appropriated it You can't just say they didn't understand ownership the way you do and leave it at that. You claim your ethics are a priori, universal, and objective. So it's wrong to take by force something a Native American is clearly using regardless of whether he has read his Hoppe. absolem posted:Yes, it should be. A lot of that sort of thing ought to be done, and it all ought to have been done yesterday, but for some reason no one listens to me when I tell them this stuff... Oh so you do believe in reparations for historical wrongs. Well all right then, why shouldn't the federal and state governments pay reparations for the depredations of slavery (which they established in law and perpetuated by naked force), or Separate But Equal, or Jim Crow, or any of that? The US and State Governments are continuous entities, so we can still hold them financially liable for past crimes even if the officials who implemented them are dead. You wouldn't say that the Ford Corporation could get out if its legal liabilities simply by changing management or waiting until everyone in charge at the time dies, would you?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
absolem posted:Also, do I need to change the OP so you fools have to post ideas of your own instead of just bashing me? Its not that I don't enjoy the debate, its just annoying to have you people act like my ideas are poo poo while 1)not doing a very good job and 2)probably having ideas that are just as bad Haha absolem posted:HAVE AT IT absolem posted:
But anyway, I want to know this: VitalSigns posted:Why shouldn't the federal and state governments pay reparations for the depredations of slavery (which they established in law and perpetuated by naked force), or Separate But Equal, or Jim Crow, or any of that? The US and State Governments are continuous entities, so we can still hold them financially liable for past crimes even if the officials who implemented them are dead. You wouldn't say that the Ford Corporation could get out if its legal liabilities simply by changing management or waiting until everyone in charge at the time dies, would you?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:54
|
|
Why are you having at it?
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
Proof is irrelevant to the magnificent a priori edifice of praxeology. Still want to know why I should embrace a system where the top 1% who hold 50% of the wealth in this country can just outright buy the police and justice system rather than at least having to bamboozle people into voting to let them partially do it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:11 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Turns out, the superiority of the white man can be proved a priori. Also democrats or communists or homosexuals existing is an initiation of force so by the NAP they must be exterminated
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:46
|
|