Ethics and Morality Inaugural Failure

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Ethics and Morality Inaugural Failure

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Shibby0709 posted:

What about all of the land of the Mexican Cession? I'd say that Mexico was coerced into signing the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Would you give up your property if you lived in the Western United States?

They can have that poo poo all back but by God we paid for the Gadsen purchase and it is OURS BY RIGHT

Actually Mexico really does have a very strong claim to the Southwest, don't they? Like, an "actually, yes, this was seized by force and should be ours, open and shut" kind of case.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 00:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 15:35

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

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.

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.

What is objective about property rights?

# ¿ May 23, 2014 01:14

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

absolem posted:

I can't keep up with this at all anymore (especially since this was a queer day off from work). So, I'll leave it at this: very little got done here. I'm still not convinced that ancap-ism is wrong, but if you want to throw some other positions at me to look at, I promise to give them a fair shake and report back (if the thread is still around). I just want everyone to know that its not that I refuse to consider change, but that I'd like to be careful about it.It would be nice to find a better system, I just don't know if it exists (so point me towards one if you like).

Also, I'm still going to post in US Pol, but hopefully in a way that doesn't spawn this insanity.

What got done here is you got your rear end put in a sling. What exactly did you want to have happen here? Most of us have considered all this an-cap poo poo and found it ridiculous. You might consider this a trial by fire and address all those quotes Sedanchair's laying down, or maybe you can explain to me how private property as your theory constitutes it is necessarily an objective truth.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 03:12

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

absolem posted:

I didn't make anyone do anything. I did try to make this more than a "debate me" thread, and the conversation seems to have taken an interesting turn (people are actually talking about ethics...) since I fell behind.

Richard Feynman got brought up earlier, and for all you concerned with being nice to people and solving problems, his book "surely you must be joking mr feynman" may not be philosophy, but as a couple other people said, its a great read. (really the only time he ever seems less than nice is towards some of the women he meets) He talks a lot about logical problem solving and the like, which is really cool too.

Can you solve the logical problem of the Hoppe quotes SedanChair helpfully provided? It is after all quite possible he is choosing paragraphs that would be less awful in context - will you not defend your teacher?

# ¿ May 23, 2014 18:44

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

BiggerBoat posted:

How do Libertarian ethics and morality systems deal with the issues of the commons?

Meaning, say, if I live on land that has a river running behind it, can I dam it up or claim ownership of that one section that runs through my property? What if I start dumping garbage in it and it floats downstream into someone else's house? What if I just put a dam in there to generate my own energy?

You can do all these things. If you damage other people's property they have the right to sue you in a court of law, for damages.

quote:

Do I have a moral obligation to let the people downstream have access to clean water; or any water at all?

That would be altruism. Of course not.

quote:

What about things like sanitation or first responders? That sort of thing. Some guy croaks in front of my street or dies in a car wreck out there. What private enterprise removes the bodies or do we let them rot in the sun? Who repairs any damage to the street or clears the wreckage? The property owner? Whoever caused the crash? What if they don't have the money? I assume in Libertopia there's no sort of insurance mandate.

The Free Market will handle it. Surely you have corpse-picking insurance? If not, well, the free market will provide such things. Surely nobody would just let such a valuable, marketable resource as human bone just sit everywhere willy nilly. To say nothing of all the delicious protein it would doubtless attract!

quote:

Am I allowed to have a big, stinking Homer Simpson landfill in my back yard even it's stinking up my neighbor's air and I'm attracting bugs and vermin everywhere? Who determines health hazards and safety issues in the commons?

Yes, you are. Your neighbor can sue you if you're impairing his property rights. If he can't afford a trip to the courthouse or a lawyer, well, I guess that's just his tough luck. As for who determines such things: The free market.

quote:

By "commons" of course I'm speaking about the things we all have to share like roads, electricity, water. Libertarianism offers no solution for this that I've found.

Sure it does. The free market! Don't you SEE? DON'T YOU SEE??

Now that said in practical terms many (perhaps most) libertarians acknowledge a need for at least a courthouse for you to attempt to sue the giant factory owner in, and some cops to come arrest you when you end up in arrears on your mortgage, as well as perhaps an extremely basic sort of social services - the corpse-pickers, etc.

# ¿ May 26, 2014 19:13

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Ethics and Morality Inaugural Failure