|
The fact that you speak of "European" versus "African" culture as a defense of what are at their core racist claims speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of your ideas. When something is no longer acceptable as an argument, simply substitute terms while keeping the argument intact. If all else fails, rail against political correctness. Fool proof.
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
As to time preference, is the claim that capital owners are forgoing things like food and shelter for investment? If not, where do they get the income required for these? The majority of wage labour is basically subsistence, so it would seem that capital owners start with some unaccounted surplus that renders any attempt to draw comparisons between the two positions fallacious. Where does the initial seed capital come from? Homesteading? This sort of mythic construction of the first acquisition of capital really pulls from the colonization of the new world and the dispossession of its indigenous inhabitants. That's what Locke was pulling from when he came up with his labour mixing metaphor at any rate. By the time he came around there really wasn't any land anywhere on the Eurasian landmass that wasn't claimed by someone. Except even you accept the premise of labour entitling permanent ownership of land, which is really the starting point of all this, it's still a straight up lie. The British and later Americans weren't above torching settlements and burning fields to move the peoples of the north east off their land, and then handing the land out to other people. There's always violent dispossession somewhere in the history of enclosed territory, the noble pioneer cutting a swath out of the wilderness to live in is a total myth.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
What happens when you're born in a community and don't have enough money to leave. Or when community A diverts the river that A through N use for irrigation? Also literally Snow Crash, jfc. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
There's more genetic and linguistic diversity in Africa than in the whole rest of the world combined. Races aren't a real thing, they're a social construction rooted in white supremacy. Any one who starts from a premise that you can use them as conceptual categories, either via an explication of biology or culture, as part of a study of human differences is a racist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Protip: Chick-fil-a serves gays because it's illegal not to. Before the CRA, businesses would openly and happily refuse to serve black people, and faced zero backlash for it. There's also a thread full of stories about businesses either refusing service to gay people or firing a person for being LGBT. So I don't know what pretend world he's living in where public outcry will prevent discrimination.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:I've always been surprised by most Goons' vehement hatred for libertarianism, especially considering that the SA forums are a great representation of what people can do when they're allowed to freely organize themselves. I don't know how many of you are gamers, but if you are, think about how idiotic politicians are when it comes to videogames. They're totally uneducated about the issue, yet they make policy based off the emotions of voters who are also ignorant. What you need to realize is that they're doing the same thing for every single issue. They're uneducated and belligerent, and playing off of your emotions. SA essentially runs as a dictatorship though. If it wasn't it'd be even more like reddit, with even more pedophiles than the ones we had(have). Seriously how stupid can you be. Goons are not a good blueprint for society Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Listen. We could totally smash the state as it exists today, and it still wouldn't make your sociopathic hyper individualist nightmare any more palatable. In my utopic dreams I hope for a consensus driven democracy, something like an updated Iroquois Confederacy, that would force links between different groups to bind the whole together. But even they had enforcement of law when they needed it. Your system is basically just feudalism again. You haven't escaped the state, just regressed it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:As a free market entity, the privately-owned DRA/DRO would clearly refuse any bribes..surely? Of course, otherwise they'd get scammer tags.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
The truth is simpler than that. They wouldn't get scammer tags because they bought off whoever administers the system. Read more about this and other libertarian experiments in stupidity in the bitcoin thread. E: Oh you fucker, Tiberius Thyben. You're lucky we live in a state or I'd murder you for that. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:I am again inclined to disagree that it demonstrates the "core human nature" very well- one must remember that in EVE you have no obligations outside of those to yourself. Like, tangibly so. Nobody gets married, has kids, raises actual civilizations, commits permanent murder, poo poo like that. Cheating and stealing pretty much always benefits you personally in the game. You are incentivized to do so at all times because the worst repercussions are "you get banned, you go buy a new account." I agree, and I think it's more instructive about how financial workers and the rich probably see the world. Put simply, EVE doesn't represent core humanity, it represents a world where people don't face or acknowledge the consequences of their actions, which is how the rich live now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:This is hopeless. Yes, it is good for everyone to have a clear understanding about who controls what. No, that doesn't imply anything about who should control what - let alone that all control over resources should belong to unelected people, upon whose land the rest of us have no right to tread. You have not even begun to justify private property rights here. The interesting thing is that the original construction of the labour mixing argument contained the corollary that the person enclosing land has to leave as much and as good for everyone else in doing so. Like I said earlier, Locke basically relied on the big empty (but not really empty) continent that had been recently discovered to justify why this was possible. Since that really isn't an option any more, due to population alone, the corollary has been dropped. That still talk about fairness, but now only in the terms of a fair reward for labour expended. The tiny bit of distributive justice is gone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Lumpen posted:When you say "our" resources, how do you define "us"? Only individuals are capable of acting. When you say "maximum possible benefit", how does one properly determine what is beneficial, and to whom, and when? All resources are scarce, and each individual has various wants to be satisfied and preferences of which desires are most important. Total central planning is an impossibility, therefore all forms of collective decision-making will fail, and the market, despite repeated failures throughout its history, will always succeed. Except for any corporate governance structure in existence. Most major corporations do not run on individual preference, or the wants and desires of individuals, and they remain the most efficient economic actors. I agree that total central planning is probably not possible, but the idea that a collective decision to limit the holdings of land, say, that an individual can acquire is a wholly different argument.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Lumpen posted:It seems to me that you're inappropriately putting words in my mouth and making general statements about decision-making outcomes that aren't supported by what I said. As soon as a person's decisions have negative externalities, as soon as they produce consequences beyond themselves, voluntarism falls apart. The idea that such a non-interventionist existence is possible is an illusion, because it requires treating everyone as if they exist in a bubble without impacting the world they live in. Individuals acting in concert for the long term benefit and sustainability of their community is exactly how we have managed to build societies and achieved technological advancement in the first place. By all means go live in the woods and eat berries, but the second you want to build a fence or cut down a tree or anything that has an impact on the environment and resources available to others, you've lost the premise of non-interference. I do think democratic structures could be much more consensus driven than they are now, but honestly the one rear end in a top hat who wants to dam a river that the 99 others use and want kept the way it is really should consider himself lucky they don't just murder him as a threat to their wellbeing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
It's more that the sort of ecumenical humanism that a lot of progressive philosophies (at least those generated in Europe) pull from are rooted in Christian intellectual tradition. Universal human worth is a pretty common ideal now, but it emerges from a specific socio-cultural context. Of course similar values come up in different forms in many places, but western philosophy is inescapably linked to Christianity.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Even hunter gatherer societies had enforced social customs and laws. The atomized nature of libertarian society isn't really something that I think people could conceive of as beneficial outside of the privilege bubble of the modern world.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What do you mean when you say "as that as that highest form that driving everything finite towards itself"? As it reads you're saying that the laws of science are driving things towards the laws of science. Or freedom driving things to freedom. Whatever word your plugging in doesn't matter, because it's a nonsensical sentence or at best is possibly a tautology. I think I get what he's saying. It's basically teleology, which is in itself a pretty circular and tautological form of reasoning. But the point is is that there is some core abstract truth everything is reaching towards, and learning and affirming that allows for the creation of a good society. It's in appealing to these fudamental truths that peopel like libertarians fidnm support from their arguments absent actual historical experience.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Guys, he said the danger of private security enforcement was conjectural. He literally has no knowledge of anything, why even bother responding? Everything from global outfits like Academi or Blackwater, to basically any local South American security company, have obviously committed atrocities and protected their own personal or direct clients at the expense of local populations. What exactly is the threshold for evidence required? Political Whores fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 07:42
|
|