|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Someone posted an article or a study or something a few months ago showing that government intervention reduces the cost of healthcare. Anyone have a link?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:Reminder that childhood malnutrition in the US was effectively eliminated over the course of the 1970s with a robust welfare state, until 1980 when most government programs were eliminated, with the assumption that private charities would pick up the slack. Now we've got the highest rates of malnutrition in the developed world, hurray. I've never heard about this. Link?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this, this is really cool. A friend was talking about Hobbes and Libertarianism and I showed them this. Was it Habermas who talked about how even though most people can tell that the sciences are descriptive and don't tell us what's right or wrong, governments appointing different experts into political positions makes certain criteria, economic growth for instance, seem like an incontrovertible, absolute, objective good, or something? That's what this article reminds me of, except this is less "people are confused about the role of science in telling us what to do" and more "evil epidemiologists even talking about the health of groups of people is the first step on the road to socialism." Time to read Zinn fucked around with this message at 17:53 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which makes it especially I never knew that Mises didn't even believe in natural rights. Why is that all internet Libertarians ever seem to talk about then, if they like Mises so much?  (I know why)
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What do you mean by "better outcomes"? From whose perspective? Value is subjective, so the measurement of society-wide "utility" or value or happiness is a fruitless task. Subjective =/ pointless. If I'm centralling planning healthcare, god forbid, and I'm reforming such-and-such program, and I decide utility is most lives saved, and then my reforms save lives, I succeeded. My success might be totally subjective, but that's a "problem" of having values, not a problem of measuring values. And by the way, the problem of all our values being subjective doesn't stop us from pursuing those objectives all the time. Austrians want you to believe that because we can't agree on what our goals should be as a society even achieving any chosen goal is like, mechanically impossible. The uncertainty of central planning in terms of its processes that Mises cares about is totally different from the uncertainty of morality.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2015 18:15
|
|