|
Can someone please just post more hilarious Rothbard quotes? Maybe the parts where he talks about getting rid of the homeless or selling your babies to child pimps?
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
RommelMcDonald posted:Can someone please just post more hilarious Rothbard quotes? Maybe the parts where he talks about getting rid of the homeless or selling your babies to child pimps? A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short: l. Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS. 2. Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it. 3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire "civil rights" structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American. 4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error. 5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society. 6. Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters. Money and banking are recondite issues. But the realities can be made vivid: the Fed is an organized cartel of banksters, who are creating inflation, ripping off the public, destroying the savings of the average American. The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to S&L banksters will be chicken-feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks. 7. America First. A key point, and not meant to be seventh in priority. The American economy is not only in recession; it is stagnating. The average family is worse off now than it was two decades ago. Come home America. Stop supporting bums abroad. Stop all foreign aid, which is aid to banksters and their bonds and their export industries. Stop gloabaloney, and let's solve our problems at home. 8. Defend Family Values. Which means, get the State out of the family, and replace State control with parental control. In the long run, this means ending public schools, and replacing them with private schools. But we must realize that voucher and even tax credit schemes are not, despite Milton Friedman, transitional demands on the path to privatized education; instead, they will make matters worse by fastening government control more totally upon the private schools. Within the sound alternative is decentralization, and back to local, community neighborhood control of the schools. Further: We must reject once and for all the left-libertarian view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools. We must try, short of ultimate privatization, to operate government facilities in a manner most conducive to a business, or to neighborhood control. But that means: that the public schools must allow prayer, and we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment that "establishment of religion" means not allowing prayer in public schools, or a creche in a schoolyard or a public square at Christmas. We must return to common sense, and original intent, in constitutional interpretation.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
I try to convert most Republicans I know into a libertarian of some form or another because then they'll vote for people that can't win elections or not vote at all.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
A lot of the conversation with Libertarians I have turns to one of those line items- "get rid of the bums". Libertarian friend of mine said that folks that work many hours but are still in poverty need to figure out a way to improve their station by either learning a skill or taking a second job. I just think its hilarious that its just a magic wave of the wand and now this bum is suddenly Productive Citizen_01. Its like they have no concept of space or the marginal utility of a dollar, an hour, or hell, a jacket. A Libertarian that adheres to the idea that the worth of a person is equated to how much they can produce, then the Libertarian has to admit that some people are worth less or worth more than others, not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of actual human worth. If you work a poo poo job that is required to make a business go, but is poo poo, then you are literally not worth any participation in society. If you were, you wouldn't be working the poo poo job! Except, SOMEONE has to work the poo poo job. In order for Libertopia to work, SOMEONE has to be low man on the totem pole. Its like they want to have a ladder of economy but want to continue to chop off the bottom rung of the ladder, wherever it may be. The only way to do this is to either reintroduce a slave like system, a feudal system, or create a separate utopia separate from everyone else like in some dystopian society where the undesirables are kept hidden and disenfranchised from the "creators". Basically they want Bioshock: Infinite.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:If everyone has a gun with them at all times then it does become a stagnant object. Like underwear. The guns aren't supposed to be in your hand, it's just that everybody is supposed to know (or really it is just implied) that you have one. Oh didn't see this post! I would say its still a bit different. Your underwear can't indiscriminately kill a bunch of people because you decide to flip out. There is also a reason that the appearance of the ability to harm others has an impact on the way situations are perceived. I think to ignore that is to ignore reality in favor of having guns all over the place.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short: Welcome to the Republican Party?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Libertarian friend of mine said... Jastiger, you always pop into these threads and describe your conversations with various libertarian friends who seem to be complete shitheads. You should probably get some new buddies. Trying to get an idea of what any ideology/economic theory/philosophy is about by talking to randos at the bar or on Facebook is like the least efficient and most frustrating and misleading way of going about things.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Especially since he isn't really any good at arguing with them.Jastiger posted:Oh didn't see this post! I would say its still a bit different. Your underwear can't indiscriminately kill a bunch of people because you decide to flip out. There is also a reason that the appearance of the ability to harm others has an impact on the way situations are perceived. I think to ignore that is to ignore reality in favor of having guns all over the place. I would be more than content to avoid lovely retreaded anti-gun arguments in this thread but you are leaning on them pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Sublimer posted:Out of these types of libertarians, which ones typically support (And supported before it was politically acceptable) gay marriage? I'm pretty sure the libertarian conservatives just want to leave it up to the states to decide, but I'm not sure about the others. Most libertarians do not believe marriage should exist as a legal construct. So, in a post-libertarian-revolution world it would be a nonissue and gay couples could live just as straight couples do with nobody ever actually marrying. Presumably this works until you accidentally cross the property of Westboro Baptist Freedom and Liberty Land and get shot. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 15:07 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's not a very good argument. Are you saying that the ability to defend yourself is somehow "the imminent threat of violence"? Because being impolite isn't violence/coercion, but using guns to enforce politeness is, so "an armed society is a polite society" proves too much.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Jastiger, you always pop into these threads and describe your conversations with various libertarian friends who seem to be complete shitheads. You should probably get some new buddies. Trying to get an idea of what any ideology/economic theory/philosophy is about by talking to randos at the bar or on Facebook is like the least efficient and most frustrating and misleading way of going about things. Ehh I just think its an interesting forum to bounce ideas around. I find a good conversation, be it on here or on Facebook is far more interesting and productive than circle jerking about things we all agree about. SedanChair posted:Especially since he isn't really any good at arguing with them. It isn't as simple as that, SedanChair. It isn't just anti gun for the sake of being anti gun. I'm pointing to what I consider to be a fundamental flaw in the NAP when applying it to modern US Libertarians. These same Libertarians argue that monopolization of force by a state is inherently wrong because it uses force or the threat of force to enact policy or certain behavior. For example, we hear of folks saying "They could just send a drone over if they don't like X!!" I'm saying, how is that any different than a private individual having the ability to do so? If SedanChair A. Freeman has a stockpile of drones, artillery pieces, access to the water supply, a small private bodyguard group, and a tank and asks me if I want to support his "purchase" of my right to the water supply, that is a form of coercion, isn't it? The same argument applies when we see Libertarians claim that the right to self defense is important and that the NAP works because if you aggress against me, I have the means to aggress back with nothing between me and the aggression (a state). Its not just about guns, its about the presence of the use of force and how it changes situations simply by existing in the context of that situation. Edit: As the poster above me said, politeness enforced with potential violence is still a form of coercion. Jastiger fucked around with this message at 15:32 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Ehh I just think its an interesting forum to bounce ideas around. I find a good conversation, be it on here or on Facebook is far more interesting and productive than circle jerking about things we all agree about. It's an interesting forum to bounce things around, but the whole "my vulgar libertarian friend said..." thing really doesn't contribute to much other than perpetuating the circle-jerk in D&D. Not just you specifically, of course. These threads quickly and inevitably devolve into that until wacko #47 shows up and trolls the poo poo out of it. If you really want to understand libertarianism, for better or worse, go read the source material and critiques of it. Trying to understand it merely by talking to people who label themselves libertarian will give you about as much insight as discussing the labor theory of value with some high schooler who has read the Communist Manifesto.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:It isn't as simple as that, SedanChair. It isn't just anti gun for the sake of being anti gun. I'm pointing to what I consider to be a fundamental flaw in the NAP when applying it to modern US Libertarians. These same Libertarians argue that monopolization of force by a state is inherently wrong because it uses force or the threat of force to enact policy or certain behavior. For example, we hear of folks saying "They could just send a drone over if they don't like X!!" Well, but the state engages in literal, actual, premeditated force. As you and the libertarians say, they send drones (or troops, or cruise missiles) and actually kill people. That's very far removed from simply having weapons of whatever caliber or lethality. Most people do not consider having weapons to be in itself coercion, and the number of weapons you have doesn't really change that. So why would libertarians especially view it as aggression? Nobody else does. You've got to spend a little time disentangling your own arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well, but the state engages in literal, actual, premeditated force. As you and the libertarians say, they send drones (or troops, or cruise missiles) and actually kill people. That's very far removed from simply having weapons of whatever caliber or lethality. Most people do not consider having weapons to be in itself coercion, and the number of weapons you have doesn't really change that. So why would libertarians especially view it as aggression? Nobody else does. That doesn't address his argument. I think you are just being to hypersensitive to the anti gun thing so you are kind of missing the forest for the trees. Like why couldn't those parties engage in literal actual premeditated force? What is stopping them? If libertarians get their way? Its a very real very big problem libertarians have to deal with, how to completely remove coheresion since that is what they seem to hate, but for whatever reason governments are the ones that get the lion share of the blame when anyone could (and have) do those things themselves. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 16:18 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Well if they did engage in force that would be different wouldn't it? Leave the gun thing aside. The same thing would apply to hammerskins or whatever, marching in the street with truncheons. It's the behavior that is (possibly) coercive, not the weapons. The militias=coercion argument is actually a pretty good one (especially in light of Cliven Bundy and what he seems to think his rights are) but it needs to be made more cleanly.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well if they did engage in force that would be different wouldn't it? Not really? Least not in any meaningful way. The potential always there and since its a really, really obvious problem you should probably address it first and not react to it happening, which seems to be what you are implying.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
tbp posted:I don't see a lot of contradiction there to be honest. Who is going to measure these externalities? Are they the enforcers or merely observers? If the latter, who actually enforces them? What about the fact that corporations can afford far better lawyers and experts that the people of some random small town who might be affected? What organization is going to be proactively testing how new technologies affect the environment, as opposed to simply reacting after things go wrong? And so on and so forth.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well, but the state engages in literal, actual, premeditated force. As you and the libertarians say, they send drones (or troops, or cruise missiles) and actually kill people. That's very far removed from simply having weapons of whatever caliber or lethality. Most people do not consider having weapons to be in itself coercion, and the number of weapons you have doesn't really change that. So why would libertarians especially view it as aggression? Nobody else does. If someone came up to me with a gang of 50 men and women all holding AKs and told me what a nice house I had and how awful it would be if something were to happen to it but luckily he and his nice employees behind him could protect me from anything terrible happening, yes I absolutely would feel coerced because most people understand things called "implicit threats". -EDIT- I see in the time I started this and walked away for a few moments this has moved on a bit. I still think that having even a single weapon does indeed constituent "coercion" of some sort, otherwise there would be no point to open carry. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:12 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If someone came up to me with a gang of 50 men and women all holding AKs and told me what a nice house I had and how awful it would be if something were to happen to it but luckily he and his nice employees behind him could protect me from anything terrible happening, yes I absolutely would feel coerced because most people understand things called "implicit threats". The "implicit threat" and the state's near monopoly on all such threats are basically the two of the primary clarion calls for libertarianism. As it stands special interests can manipulate the state to use it's power without direct cost or involvement themselves. The libertarian objective on this topic is that the general population would benefit from having this monopoly busted up. Two major reasons being that 1.) Those wishing to use such force would be more directly related to it's cost and "bad PR" and 2.) It gets rid of the cover that implicit violence is "just" because it's filtered through the State and a democratic facade. EDIT: The potential for coercion in society exists no matter what. The question is how centralized it is, and whether the coercion, implicit or not, is of an aggressive or defensive nature. EDIT 2: And going back to what SedanChair was saying, merely having a stockpile of weapons isn't aggression, it's whether that implicit force is applied aggressively. Coming up to someone with a gang and shaking them down for protection money is different than, say, having a gang stay inside of a warehouse or town limits to protect the goods or residents from outside aggressors. People often conflate coercion and aggression but they're not interchangeable. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 17:33 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I see in the time I started this and walked away for a few moments this has moved on a bit. I still think that having even a single weapon does indeed constituent "coercion" of some sort, otherwise there would be no point to open carry. Yeah, in my opinion it's gone over that line on several occasions. I wish I could find the photo right now of some tac'ed out beardlord standing in the bed of his truck with an AR at low ready, surveying some public gathering. This will have to do for now:  If I was one of the people in that line in the background, I would want to yell "get out of here with that stupid poo poo, filth" but would feel like I was risking my safety and that of those around me to do so. That's clearly coercion. It's also coercion when police do it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:It's an interesting forum to bounce things around, but the whole "my vulgar libertarian friend said..." thing really doesn't contribute to much other than perpetuating the circle-jerk in D&D. Not just you specifically, of course. These threads quickly and inevitably devolve into that until wacko #47 shows up and trolls the poo poo out of it. I think its useful because I know these people and I can see how they think. Its also useful to see how my own ideas are viewed when posted here and we can discuss them from different points of view. But, I totally hear ya man. SedanChair posted:Well, but the state engages in literal, actual, premeditated force. As you and the libertarians say, they send drones (or troops, or cruise missiles) and actually kill people. That's very far removed from simply having weapons of whatever caliber or lethality. Most people do not consider having weapons to be in itself coercion, and the number of weapons you have doesn't really change that. So why would libertarians especially view it as aggression? Nobody else does. I don't think that makes a difference. People engage in literal, actual, premeditated force all the time, whether it be actual overt shooting of people or the threat of doing so. For example, there are laws against holding guns and truncheons outside of voting booths because of the perceived threat of coercion. This demonstrates that showing the possibility of force can be used as a form of coercion. Look at security guys at sporting events or security guards at target. They don't have guns, but their presence and uniforms are used to encourage or discourage certain behavior. Same for armed guards at banks and in court. Its pretty evident that the show of force and the visibility (or even the perceived visibility) of the ability to inflict harm changes and can even coerce others into action. As another poster noted, the specific issue I have with the NAP and Libertarians is that they advocate for defense, which makes sense, but when challenged on why they should be able to use force its because they wish to use that defense to coerce others into not offending. Which....is contradictory.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah, in my opinion it's gone over that line on several occasions. I wish I could find the photo right now of some tac'ed out beardlord standing in the bed of his truck with an AR at low ready, surveying some public gathering. This will have to do for now: I agree that armed police officers are coercion, and that they should only be armed if there is a meaningful chance they will also be met with armed resistance themselves. But the police have a set of laws and a a Justice system to answer to (on paper, let's not discuss how well this works in practice right this second) and so I trust the police more than I would trust any wannabe gunfighter or gangster in the glorious libertopia. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:In the libertarian case, this paves the way for the rule of private tyranny and coercion by proxy -- hired guns paid for by a landowner, just to use a general example. In the left-wing anarchist case, this paves the way for rule by private conspiracies and assassins. No. Anarchism espouses rule of law and democratic legislation. Rules make by the people they affect would probably criminalize assassination. The same cannot be said for a hypothetical libertarian police states, where anyone with the money can do whatever they want by law.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Tias posted:No. Anarchism espouses rule of law and democratic legislation. Rules make by the people they affect would probably criminalize assassination. And enforce it how? Who cares if it's illegal if there is no force more powerful that can impose the rule of law?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I think its useful because I know these people and I can see how they think. Its also useful to see how my own ideas are viewed when posted here and we can discuss them from different points of view. But, I totally hear ya man. Fair enough, just don't think that it's actually leading to a better understanding of the overall schools of thought. It's pretty much limited to understanding the individuals and your own musings. One of the best pieces of advice I got when I was younger was this: If you want to really understand something, stop arguing about it on the internet, and start picking up books. Debate and discussion is useful to a point, but it can often lead to your opinions being formed in an echo-chamber.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:Who is going to measure these externalities? Are they the enforcers or merely observers? If the latter, who actually enforces them? What about the fact that corporations can afford far better lawyers and experts that the people of some random small town who might be affected? What organization is going to be proactively testing how new technologies affect the environment, as opposed to simply reacting after things go wrong? And so on and so forth. There's an implied belief in libertarianism that there's no such thing as power discrepancies. The lawyer you have access to and the lawyer that Megacorp Inc. have access to are exactly the same.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Davethulhu posted:There's an implied belief in libertarianism that there's no such thing as power discrepancies. The lawyer you have access to and the lawyer that Megacorp Inc. have access to are exactly the same. I don't think that's quite it - they believe that, in a Truly Free Market society, any power discrepancy could be overcome by cleverness. A super-smart software engineer is only a few weeks and a few law textbooks away from being a super-smart lawyer capable of taking on big corporations, or a master public policy analyst, or anything else. It's the result of a society that's never required them to develop expertise on something outside their comfort zone, them never doing anything that teaches them "there's not always enough time to do everything worth doing," and escapist media where the hero's always a perfectly quick study.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And enforce it how? Who cares if it's illegal if there is no force more powerful that can impose the rule of law? Depends upon what he means by "anarchism", but most anarchist societies operated like a ground-up, nonhierarchical directly democratic government. If one small group decided the rules didn't apply to them the rest would respond in an organized way very much as a state would using their equivalent of police or militia. Anarchists draw some kind of distinction between State and Government, retaining the latter in all but name, but I'll let Tias give his own opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Depends upon what he means by "anarchism", but most anarchist societies operated like a ground-up, nonhierarchical directly democratic government. If one small group decided the rules didn't apply to them the rest would respond in an organized way very much as a state would using their equivalent of police or militia. Anarchists draw some kind of distinction between State and Government, retaining the latter in all but name, but I'll let Tias give his own opinion. And what happens if the group isn't small? Like If Russia decides to invade? Are neighboring communities obligated to loan their militias in defense of another community?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
I have an old friend who turned into an ancap a few years ago, and every day he's always posting dumb, smug poo poo on Facebook. Had this exchange a few minutes ago. I'm Ken Tucky. Someone in this thread put it best by saying it's pretty much a cult. They've never been right about anything, argue in the face of fact and historical precedent, and just carry about with a smug sense of superiority over those "statist sheeple". He also always posts Matrix "red pill" macros and says things like "I wonder what I'd be like if I had 'woke up' sooner".
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And what happens if the group isn't small? Like If Russia decides to invade? Are neighboring communities obligated to loan their militias in defense of another community? Maybe. If they feel like it and/or are getting compensated (probably monetarily) and/or something something self-interests. The answer will always be something ridiculously oversimplified that doesn't take into account "basic human logic" or "the possibility of corrupt self-interest groups and individuals screwing over others being a BAD thing" or some other sort of logic which makes the actions of nations suffering from war fever seem calm and rationally thought out decisions. What few reasonable and otherwise good ideas libertarians come up with have this awful habit of drowning themselves in madness that even Spartans would not touch. Honestly, just trying to parse the majority of libertarian positions, beliefs, and preferences causes me headaches, the fact that you people can go on about this for hours amazes me.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because being impolite isn't violence/coercion, but using guns to enforce politeness is, so "an armed society is a polite society" proves too much. Being polite can be coercion. Who was the libertarian that anyone who addresses you verbally is committing aural rape by making the air vibrate against your eardrum, but that if it's done politely permission will be granted after the fact?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Caros posted:Since all rights are property rights, they argue, it stands to reason that you must own yourself, and thus everything produced by yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:Maybe. If they feel like it and/or are getting compensated (probably monetarily) and/or something something self-interests. That's anarchocapitalism, I was talking about left-anarchism. If you did have some kind of large-scale coordination between communities for economic, environmental and social decision making then one community would not be allowed to let everyone else die from a Russian invasion due to their inaction. But if it's a really small community or group of conscientious objectors that won't have much effect on the outcome it might be allowed. It goes without saying that NAP is not something left anarchists care about.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:Isn't it the other way around, what they believe, or am I mistaken? For Self-Ownership based libertarians, the basic premise is that you own yourself. Your time and labor represent, for lack of a better word, portions of your owned self mixed with the physical world. So you own the product of your labor. However, if the capital/land/raw resources used belong to someone else, then you don't necessarily own everything you produce if you used someone else's stuff in the process.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
I strayed a libertarian club in law school because my finger was on the pulse of American politics and I wanted to troll the Federalist Society with a "all cops are bastards" platform but it got co-opted by a classmate and she went on to be a prosecutor so I guess it didn't work out
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:For Self-Ownership based libertarians, the basic premise is that you own yourself. Your time and labor represent, for lack of a better word, portions of your owned self mixed with the physical world. So you own the product of your labor. However, if the capital/land/raw resources used belong to someone else, then you don't necessarily own everything you produce if you used someone else's stuff in the process. But I mean, don't they think that all rights are property rights because you own yourself, rather than that you own yourself because all rights are property rights, like the OP said? Maybe pedantic, but it's like the difference between, "I got a driver's license, because I want to be able to drive," and "I want to be able to drive, because I got a driver's license." e; poo poo I might have used the wrong quote. Here's what I was referring to: "Since all rights are property rights, they argue, it stands to reason that you must own yourself"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:Maybe pedantic, but In my experience, you pretty much have to be pedantic. Little details are important (that's where the devil hides you know. Insert appropriate joke here.) and, perhaps unsurprisingly, those little details which can completely change the meaning of what you're trying to say? Internet libertarian sorts often forget them, either due to poor grasp of basic grammar and sentence structure or because they're just plain idiots.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
I've noticed that's what they trip you up on, semantics about inconsequential nonsense while glossing over "the free market needs slavery to find the value of labor" and "sell your babies or let them starve." What's the point of owning your body if you are born a trespasser? Sell your body, or die makes the whole thing moot except for those born into money. Almost like they made it that way.
Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 04:52 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:Who is going to measure these externalities? Are they the enforcers or merely observers? If the latter, who actually enforces them? What about the fact that corporations can afford far better lawyers and experts that the people of some random small town who might be affected? What organization is going to be proactively testing how new technologies affect the environment, as opposed to simply reacting after things go wrong? And so on and so forth. I didn't say that the idea wasn't flawed, I said it wasn't contradictory.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 06:43
|
|
