|
I think, to accomidate Jrodefeld's particular compulsion to respond to everything in order, we should all blank out all previous posts and collaborate, possibly off-site, on a single resource that one of us can post here. He won't learn anything, really, but it'll be marginally less frustrating for us.
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Jrodefeld, here's a single, straightforward question: Do you believe that (the preservation of) personal property (such as cars, TVs, et cetera) is more important than human life? Yes or no?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
I'm going to ask you again, Jrodefeld: Do you believe that (the preservation of) personal property (such as cars, TVs, et cetera) is more important than human life? Yes or no?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
I really mean it, guys - stop giving him distractions from answering the question I was asking, that being: Jrodefeld: Do you believe that (the preservation of) personal property (such as cars, TVs, et cetera) is more important than human life? Yes or no?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
If we only ask questions he doesn't want to/can't answer, maybe we can make him re-evaluate himseaahahahahhahahahhaha But hey, it's worth asking anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I believe that human rights and property rights are one and the same. Your question is too vague to give a definitive answer. In what way would the preservation of justly acquired property cause harm to human life? I didn't ask about human RIGHTS, I asked about human LIFE. quote:Are you speaking about the so-called "lifeboat scenario" where a drowning person would need to violate the property right of the lifeboat owner to save his life? Or like the example of a starving person who has to steal food to stay alive? If a starving person steals a loaf of bread, then he is indeed violating a property right. Any one of us would do the same thing if our life was on the line. And I would gladly pay the store owner back for the value of the food stolen once I recovered from my perilous state. If the property owner is so callous as to press charges against me anyway, I would argue my case to the court. In your stateless libertarian society, what court? Whose court? The shopowner's court? What if the "callous" property owner, acting in their economic self-interest in order to scare future shoplifters from doing as you did, bribes the court in order to make an example of you - and, in their own economic self-interest, the judge/juror(s)/arbitrator accepts that bribe(s)? What is your recourse? quote:There would be serious societal backlash against the property owner who would be vindictive enough to go after a starving person who stole food in desperation to live. Social pressure would punish such action. What if the "property owner" was sufficiently wealthy that they could influence all forms of media to such a degree that [the starving person, or even ALL impoverished people] were demonized in the public consciousness? Social pressure might, in that case, empower the vindictive "property owner" and further punish the impoverished person/people, even though their actions were justified by their right to live? Is that such a far-fetched situation? quote:That is the only scenario where I could see a potential conflict between property rights and human life. And even then, I don't think it is much of a conflict because how many store owners would refuse a small amount of food to a dying person? You cannot base your entire ethical and legal system on a once in a decade kind of freak occurrence. If you sincerely believe that starving people are denied free food by [food-havers] only "once a decade", you're very much mistaken. Just two years ago, a homeless man was strangled to death for shoplifting toothpaste from a CVS, and another woman was shot and killed by a security guard after shoplifting food and other small goods from a Wal-Mart, and ANOTHER shoplifter was killed by security guards at a DIFFERENT Wal-Mart. Three times in one year is hardly "once in a decade", and the fear of death (the "threat of force") caused by these events have undoubtedly exacerbated the suffering of many more impoverished people. And another example, in the field of clothing (which is likewise critical for human survival): Abercrombie and Fitch refuses to donate unsold clothing to charity because it would rather protect its brand's aura of wealth than help poor people sleep warmly at night. H&M was doing the same thing. Those are some specific examples of private property (and even more egregiously, "brand protection") being held in higher regard than human life and safety. It happens all the time. Capitalism kills people every day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I believe that human rights and property rights are one and the same. Your question is too vague to give a definitive answer. In what way would the preservation of justly acquired property cause harm to human life? I didn't ask about human RIGHTS, I asked about human LIFE. quote:Are you speaking about the so-called "lifeboat scenario" where a drowning person would need to violate the property right of the lifeboat owner to save his life? Or like the example of a starving person who has to steal food to stay alive? If a starving person steals a loaf of bread, then he is indeed violating a property right. Any one of us would do the same thing if our life was on the line. And I would gladly pay the store owner back for the value of the food stolen once I recovered from my perilous state. If the property owner is so callous as to press charges against me anyway, I would argue my case to the court. In your stateless libertarian society, what court? Whose court? The shopowner's court? What if the "callous" property owner, acting in their economic self-interest in order to scare future shoplifters from doing as you did, bribes the court in order to make an example of you - and, in their own economic self-interest, the judge/juror(s)/arbitrator accepts that bribe(s)? What is your recourse? quote:There would be serious societal backlash against the property owner who would be vindictive enough to go after a starving person who stole food in desperation to live. Social pressure would punish such action. What if the "property owner" was sufficiently wealthy that they could influence all forms of media to such a degree that [the starving person, or even ALL impoverished people] were demonized in the public consciousness? Social pressure might, in that case, empower the vindictive "property owner" and further punish the impoverished person/people, even though their actions were justified by their right to live? Is that such a far-fetched situation? quote:That is the only scenario where I could see a potential conflict between property rights and human life. And even then, I don't think it is much of a conflict because how many store owners would refuse a small amount of food to a dying person? You cannot base your entire ethical and legal system on a once in a decade kind of freak occurrence. If you sincerely believe that starving people are denied free food by [food-havers] only "once a decade", you're very much mistaken. Just two years ago, a homeless man was strangled to death for shoplifting toothpaste from a CVS, and another woman was shot and killed by a security guard after shoplifting food and other small goods from a Wal-Mart, and ANOTHER shoplifter was killed by security guards at a DIFFERENT Wal-Mart. Three times in one year is hardly "once in a decade", and the fear of death (the "threat of force") caused by these events have undoubtedly exacerbated the suffering of many more impoverished people. And another example, in the field of clothing (which is likewise critical for human survival): Abercrombie and Fitch refuses to donate unsold clothing to charity because it would rather protect its brand's aura of wealth than help poor people sleep warmly at night. H&M was doing the same thing. Those are some specific examples of private property (and even more egregiously, "brand protection") being held in higher regard than human life and safety. It happens all the time. Capitalism kills people every day. ~~~ reposting this because it got caught at the bottom of page 5.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What good is a system of ethics that people have to violate on a regular basis to stay alive? I'm not going to tell you to ignore my previous posts, jrodefeld, because you shouldn't, but this is the core of what I'm trying to say.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:What exactly happens if I take something that you did not want me to take without using violence? Any attempt to retrieve it or otherwise enforce your property rights would involve initiating violence. Especially if I decided to squat on your land. How do you propose to get me off without initiating violence against me? In Jrodefeld's worldview, taking his property/squatting on his land is itself an act of violence.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, what's your position with regards to what should be done about the housing crisis? There are nearly FIVE TIMES as many uninhabited homes in the United States than there are homeless families (including "families" of one). The vast majority of these homes are currently owned by banks, not private individuals. For those banks, the houses are purely abstract tokens, no more meaningful than houses in Monopoly, but for those homeless families, those homes could save lives. How can you condemn those families, those children, to homelessness when there's enough room for everyone to be sheltered and safe? How can anyone? Yet somehow, those children are still out on the streets. That's why capitalism is abhorrent. That's why your worldview is morally bankrupt. Odds are you're never going to change or reconsider your position. You've convinced yourself that the world is naturally fair, that some "invisible hand" ensures that bad things only happen to bad people, and that if someone was really a good person, they'd be rich and successful by now. You may claim not to believe this, but the policies you advocate would only cause more pain and suffering if such a force did not exist. Jrodefeld, bad things happen to good people, and vice versa, all the time. That is a fact. People are not rational actors. POWER CORRUPTS. Life is suffering. And Capitalism kills. The duty of every human being should therefore be to mitigate one another's suffering to the best of their ability. For someone like you, who clearly has the time and disposable income to come here and argue economics, that means rejecting the "just world" fallacy. That means putting yourself in the shoes of the less fortunate. That means openly and loudly challenging the systems that oppress and exploit the impoverished and marginalized. Please be a better person. DoctorWhat fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The very fact that there are more vacant houses than homeless just serves to illustrate how out of control that housing bubble is. But how can you blame this on libertarianism? Libertarian monetary policy would never have permitted the creation of an artificial bubble like this in the first place. The artificially high housing prices would not exist and the price of homes would drop under a libertarian society, there would not be an overproduction of houses and supply would meet demand on the market. These problems you are referencing would simply not exist in a libertarian free market economy. Do you sincerely believe that greed (and marketing) don't exist in a "libertarian free market economy"? And when you talk about "libertarian monetary policy", who exactly would enforce that policy in your proposed stateless society? In fact, wouldn't that be interfering with the development of the market, making it no longer "free"? I don't like using "gotcha!" arguments but, really, it's a pretty easy way to dismantle your worldview, because your entire philosophy is based on contradictions and magical thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Is the term "negroid" what is so shocking about this sentence and paragraph? Refer to the wikipedia entry: He's making claims about intrinsic mental and cultural differences between white and black people. That is a racist thing to do and is not based in reality. Axetrain posted:How about "Brick to ya face Economy"? Everyone will through voluntary rationalism enter a continent sized thunder dome with one brick and then proceed to murder everyone else with said brick (don't ask how we'll achieve this, it is unimportant). Whoever the last human alive is will gain property rights over the planet earth solving all property disputes forever! Please, can't we just get beyond thunderdomes?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you understand the concept of time preference? If I have a high time preference it merely means that I prefer goods sooner than later. Does that make me inferior? Does that make me less intelligent? If there are observed differences in time preference between different cultures and racial groups, why is it inherently racist to point that out? Racial generalizations about personality or "inner life" are racist. Part (but not all) of why is that we do not currently live in a world where social biases can be fully eliminated from experimentation on human psychology. I'm going to cut you off at the pass and say that, no, racial tendencies towards cancer and other diseases are NOT racist to acknowledge, because they don't make assumptions about a human being's capacity for thought and feeling based on their race. There are NO KNOWN INTRINSIC MENTAL DIFFERENCES ACROSS RACIAL LINES. To insinuate otherwise promotes racial essentialism, which is just another form of racism and bigotry. "Black people talk like this while white people talk like this" isn't some brave defiance of "political correctness", it's racism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Psykmoe posted:This reminds me of a partial quote on the topic I saw, but it's unattributed and without context. http://inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias edit: gently caress, beaten
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Actually, going by recent events it looks like Jrod took a page from Molybeux's playbook regarding sockpuppets in this very thread. I dunno, the other guy actually has an EARLIER regdate than Jrod, so that would take a LOT of planning going back two years.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Maybe what we need is just one person to engage jrod, we all discuss the problems with his libertarian ideas and then we have a single messenger who sends a single pressing issue via PM to jrod. And then that messenger posts jrod's reply in the thread and we repeat the process. That way there are no distractions. this system would never work because jrod wouldn't actually behave rationally. much like libertarianism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ultimate Warrior hated homosexuals and Muslims, so it'd be a true libertarian paradise. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 14:36
|
|