Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Property rights are essentially incoherent as a concept. Most civil rights consist of guarantees that you may do something without interference. Property rights consist of guarantees of your ability to interfere with things. Most rights are about relationships with people. Property rights are about relationships with things.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2015 04:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 23:44

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

To put it more plainly, describing "no one can control your speaking, generally" and "you may control who walks on this ground" as identical phenomena called "rights" is nonsensical on any level beyond "these are what the state guarantees", which itself is incoherent for thinking about these phenomena. Or, rather, it's nonsensical in a society that has rejected hermetically sealed social classes and believes "rights" are universal. With "rights" being restricted to the elite, we can understand the aforementioned phenomena as both being signs of authority- the ability to control, and the ability to live without being controlled.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2015 04:48

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

The current conception of property rights also conveniently developed in such a way as to legitimize stealing Native American land, such as the "doctrine of discovery", and the shift from selling uses of the land to selling the land itself in the 1600s and 1700s that mysteriously allowed colonials to reinterpret treaties in such a way as to justify genocidal campaigns to force Natives out of their land.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2015 18:27

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

It's cool how Stalinist and libertarian beliefs about economic development are essentially similar, but the libertarian ones are far more retarded

# ¿ Oct 11, 2015 08:02

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

jrodefeld posted:

Define "oppression". There's no reason to respond to a post like this but it makes a clear point nonetheless. You know the libertarian ideology fairly well by now after all that I've posted. You obviously cannot think that any libertarian would support a fascist police state. Remember the loving non-aggression principle I remind you of every other post?! It is literally the starting point of libertarian ethics. Have you ever heard of a fascist police state that doesn't aggress against people?

A discussion in a waste of time if you are not arguing in good faith. You state something you know is not true because you are hell bent on impugning the character of libertarians. You think we all just have a secret desire to oppress people and are using this high-minded rhetoric as a license to do it.

This is not a good faith debate tactic.

If the free market is the best way of organizing things, why do libertarians support concentrating capital and resources into few hands and rendering most economic decision-making outside of the market's bounds?

# ¿ Oct 11, 2015 08:09

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

It should be clear by this point that libertarians are not opposed to the state, as they envision entities that have the capacity to enforce contracts through violence. What they oppose is government, aka all the parts that don't involve hurting someone. Thus, in libertarian dreams, kleptomaniacs receive no treatment, but are left to starve to death, because a national healthcare service involves thinking in terms of groups rather than individuals, the great crime of collectivism.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2015 08:51

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

jrodefeld posted:

No it's not. It is moral for YOU to give your apple to the person who is starving. And let's be real here. There is no shortage of people who will gladly help people who don't have enough to eat. The people on this planet who have real food shortages are those who live in the third world, usually under repressive dictators far removed from anything that resembles libertarianism.

But let me ask this. Why is it that leftists seem to confine their redistributive goals to within the borders of existing States? Why shouldn't all the richer countries be forced to give up any of their "excess" wealth and transfer it to poorer countries until everyone on the planet is materially equal? If we speak about the abuse of the 1%, WE are the global 1% and are just as fabulously wealthy to a poor person living in North Korea or some African nation rune by an authoritarian regime than a Wall Street banker seems to us.

There is no logical reason why your line of thinking ought not to lead to a world government that redistributes money across the globe, which would naturally mean a massive transfer from the West to Eastern nations and a drastic reduction in our standard of living in the United States and Canada, and much of Europe for that matter.

But most socialists done take their views to the logical conclusion. Why is that?

You seem to be posting from an alternate universe. We can't help you in this one.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2015 08:41

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

GunnerJ posted:

I guess I'm not a prominent enough poster to get an answer as to why shareholders are capable of making collective decisions that don't gently caress over their companies, but not employees.

Libertarians don't like to acknowledge the death of entrepreneurial capitalism, I'm afraid.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 21:19

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

"Freedom", as understood by the right, which is the primary ideological parent of libertarianism, is not about lack of restrictions, but about control. Freedom of property means absolute control over property. Freedom of speech means controlling whether listeners must respect what you say or not. Thus, support for slavery is entirely in line with libertarianism, especially given how many libertarians believe the logic of the market governs all our behaviors. Objections to it from libertarians are largely in the realm of intellectual dilettantry and propagandizing, to be blunt.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 02:20

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

jrodefeld posted:

In the abstract, I absolutely agree with everything you've written here. I've made mistakes in all the time I've posted here. That is probably inevitable when posting as much as I do and I shouldn't be afraid to admit when I've made an error.

However, in this particular case I think the amount of criticism I've received is really unfounded. And I believe the conclusion that some have drawn that libertarians must not care about slavery is patently absurd.

I will freely admit that I don't know too much about the policies of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. I have heard a few things about the human rights abuses that take place in those two nations, but I don't know enough in depth to discuss them. However, I'd be more than happy to be educated on the issue of slavery in those two particular countries. I don't know the degree to which that is occurring, what exactly is meant by the term "slavery". I am assuming we are speaking about actual chattel slavery, human beings being sold as property? Or are you referring to workers who don't have enough Union rights vis a vis their employers but are not forced to associate with them (i.e. they can quit their jobs)?

I have been aware of the different studies put out by different libertarian groups regarding the degree of economic liberty in the different nations of the world and I merely wanted to cite one such example to illustrate a particular point about wealth creation vis a vis economic liberty and the rising living standards that generally result. I frankly don't know enough about the methodology of this particular Cato study to either defend it or denounce it in its entirety.

From what I have read, I understand that this particular study is weighted in support of certain criteria. That hardly means that other very important liberty issues that fall outside of the scope of this particular study are somehow unimportant or irrelevant to libertarians as has been asserted. It would be like if a libertarian group put out a study on the effects of liberal policies on drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands and someone started criticizing them for their omission of the various non-libertarian and anti-liberty policies that those countries have. "If opposition to the welfare state and opposition to coercive taxation is so important to libertarians, how could you omit those things from your study of drug and prostitution policy in the Netherlands?" It's just beyond the scope of that particular study.

Your issue with Qatar is less a relevant issue in regards to the Cato list because Qatar was ranked number 13. Still high, all things considered, but given the anti-liberty stance of most nations in the world, you could easily say that all nations outside the top 10 are pretty non-libertarian in most respects. The bigger issue is the United Arab Emirates which is ranked number 5. Given what I have read about the United Arab Emirates, you would have to conclude that this study is weighted almost entirely in favor of specific economic criteria. Their legal system is heavily influenced by Sharia law after all.

Interestingly a similar study by Heritage, the United Arab Emirates is ranked number 25 and Qatar is ranked number 32. This is their top 10:

1.
Hong Kong

2.
Singapore

3.
New Zealand

4.
Australia

5.
Switzerland

6.
Canada

7.
Chile

8.
Estonia

9.
Ireland

10.
Mauritius

I would probably assume that this top 10 would be more to your liking? Many of these countries are similar to those ranked on the Cato study, but the offending two countries are nowhere in the top 20. Perhaps they weighted their study in a more equitable manner which took a broader view of liberty in general?

If this better illustrates the point I was attempting to make, fine. The larger point is that the degree of economic freedom and market liberalization is heavily correlated with the average living standards, the creation of a healthy middle class and the alleviation of poverty. Now, I'm sure you could go through and pick out even some of these countries and chastise me about how they deviate from libertarian principles in one way or another. But I think that would be an unfair point because no one is claiming that they are models for libertarian society. The only claim being offered is that these are examples of relatively free economies where entrepreneurs can start businesses easily, property rights are generally respected, the currencies are fairly stable and they come closer to laissez-faire than other nations. That is the only claim being offered.

I am absolutely NOT trying to avoid responsibility for making an error. I would absolutely admit to being wrong if I thought that the critique being levied against me was fair. The problem is that I'd bet none of you actually took the time to read the study, see what the scope and intent of the study was and what criteria was used. Instead the inclusion of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in the top 20 prompted multiple posters to make the assertion that this proves libertarians don't care about slavery. If there is ANYTHING libertarians care about it's slavery! This is abundantly clear if you read ANY of the literature. In fact, it could be argued that libertarians are the only principled opponents of slavery. Only through a consistent application of the principle of self-ownership can a person be truly and completely opposed to slavery.

Anyway, I really hope we've exhausted this particular topic for now. If it makes anyone feel better, you can refer to the Heritage rankings I listed above rather than the Cato rankings. I do take your larger point and I won't hesitate to admit to being wrong, or not understanding something properly when I am critiqued fairly.

If I could ask the authors of the Cato study a question, I'd definitely ask "why did you guys rank the United Arab Emirates and Qatar so high on the list given their history of human rights abuses? Aren't these abuses related to economic liberty?" I think that would be an entirely fair question, especially given the discrepancy between the Cato study and the Heritage study regarding those two countries. I can speculate as to what they would likely say, but without knowing more I am not going to denounce the study and say I made a horrible, terrible mistake in citing it.

I think this is fair, right?

On the contrary, at least one prominent Libertarian philosopher who.you've cited, Walter Block, is in favor of slavery. Indeed, the logic which he uses is one you should address if you want people.to take your claim that Libertarianism is inherently antislavery seriously, rather than understanding it as the last act of a desperate man.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 04:44

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

jrodefeld posted:

No, that's not true. Nozick isn't my favorite but I don't disavow minarchists from the libertarian movement. I'm a big tent advocate, within reason. I would consider the act of selling out to the DC establishment or being heavily funded or influenced by the Koch brothers to be a more egregious sin than advocating a limited State or being a strict Constitutionalist. I supported Ron Paul for president in 2008 and 2012 even though he is not an anarchist. I support limiting coercion as much as possible. If you support the night watchman limited State, then let's work to roll back State authority until it resides within those limits. Then we might argue over whether to go further into anarchy or not. But those fights are not very practically relevant. They are interesting as a theoretical exercise, but we needn't excommunicate people from the movement because they believe in the minimal State.

Nozick has done some good work and absolutely was a good libertarian, even with his deviations from what I consider to be the consistent case for liberty.

How is Walter Block's defense of slavery incompatible with libertarianism as a whole?

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 08:31

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

jrodefeld posted:

Let's start with a written debate and see how it goes from there. A topic? Well, let's first figure out the logistics of how the debate would procede. There are a million relevant topics we could discuss related to libertarianism and I'm sure regardless of the formal topic we decide upon, numerous other issues will no doubt intrude. Would we debate on this forum? I'm thinking that we set up a specific thread where we agree that only you and I will post. Maybe we set up a second thread where others can comment on our ongoing debate. Perhaps a moderator would be willing to ban people who intrude onto our thread to keep the rules established. This is just a thought.

I'd have to carve out enough time to dedicate to a debate as well but that shouldn't be too hard since I'll certainly have some free time this holiday season. There should be a reasonable time limit on the debate also. Since I have to sleep and will have some obligations during the day, something like a three day time limit seems reasonable to me. That way we can both say what we have to say but there is a finite limit.

You play online role playing games so you'll probably appreciate this analogy. The reason I've never been able to get into those kinds of games is that I know there is always someone out there with less of a life than me who is willing to spend more time at the game, getting more experienced, more skilled and thus able to take advantage through sheer force of repetition and time invested. That is sometimes how I feel posting on these message boards. There are members on these forums who will end up spending a whole lot more time here than I am able to. In an open-ended debate, the poster who merely posts the most will feel as though they have won because the other person can't dedicate the same investment of time and therefore is not able to reply to each and ever post, read every link and source and so forth. So a hard time limit is a necessity to alleviate this problem.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll talk more about this in the coming days.

Five rounds. 1500 words maximum for the initial post, 1000 for rebuttals and responses. You will be responsible for affirming, your opponent for negating. Going more than 50 words over the word limit counts as a concession of the debate. Edit: Also, the bounds of the debate are to be established in the initial posts, and exceeding those bounds constitutes a concession of the debate as well.

With those conditions and the three-day time limit, I would gladly debate the proposition, "The Libertarian notions of 'the non-aggression principle' and 'coercion' are internally consistent and coherent notions." provided that a suitable definition of those terms that you will accept is available.

I am sure Caros or other people would be willing to do so with other topics on similar terms.

Effectronica fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Nov 20, 2015

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 09:12

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

jrodefeld posted:

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a little more about your personal story regarding libertarianism. From what I have ascertained from our past discussions you were once a dedicated libertarian who was familiar with all the common literature and arguments. The evolution in your thinking started when your friend became very ill and was unable to afford the treatment that could have cured her (my recollection is that your friend was female). From this undoubtedly traumatic event, you reassessed your position and rejected libertarianism. But this really doesn't account for the vitriol and hatred you have of libertarianism. At most, this event might make you reconsider a specific aspect of your beliefs, in particular that there is indeed a role for government policy in establishing some sort of social safety net that could have effectively helped your friend get the health treatment she needed. But this does nothing to undermine the many other libertarian arguments with which you are no doubt familiar. There must be more to the story.

Have you ever had any traumatic real-life experiences with libertarians? A psychotic ex-girlfriend who happened to be a libertarian? An encounter with cultish Ayn Rand followers? I'm just trying to understand your transition from a person who was an informed libertarian to one who now holds a "particular loathing for libertarianism". It might be worth holding a particular loathing for Communism, but this hatred for an ideology that is based on opposing aggression seems excessive. If anything, your particular experience ought to give you a certain amount of sympathy for people who still hold these views, such as myself.

If I was a leftist, which I was and probably still would be had I not been persuaded by Harry Browne's writings and Ron Paul's presidential campaign in 2007 and subsequently through reading many of the important books written on the subject, I would nonetheless still appreciate the work of certain libertarian authors and commentators.

Do you have a contemporary libertarian author or commentator that you still admire or appreciate, even though you disagree on plenty of important issues? I would think that you would appreciate Scott Horton and his daily radio show or the people who run Antiwar.com since they are narrowly focused on opposing war and police brutality. They publish probably more leftist commentators than even libertarian ones. I would assume that you might still have an appreciation for left-libertarians like Roderick Long and Gary Chartier. Maybe you haven't been made aware of the breadth of contemporary libertarian thought?

Anyway, I could easily list the leftist reporters and commentators that I most admire. I admire Glenn Greenwald, Ralph Nader and Jeremy Scahill to name only a couple. Though I have issues with their economics, Cornel West and Chris Hedges.

The vitriol that many of you show towards libertarians is more than a little concerning. We are just individuals who are doing our best to discover a consistent moral and intellectual framework with which to establish civil society and allow human flourishing. If you stay within your own insulated bubble it becomes easy to demonize people who think different from you and forget our shared humanity.

"The vitriol that many of you show towards Nazis is more than a little concerning. We are just individuals who are doing our best to discover a consistent moral and intellectual framework with which to establish civil society and allow human flourishing. If you stay within your own insulated bubble it becomes easy to demonize people who think different from you and forget our shared humanity."

Your constant attempts to come off as jus' folks without responding to any critique on moral grounds beyond shaking your head and going "Nuh-UH!" are more than a little disconcerting and disturbing.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 09:34

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

jrodefeld posted:

It's hard to believe this is even a serious question, but I'll answer nonetheless. Slavery is one of the most egregious violations of the non-aggression principle possible and is indeed a worse act than a property tax. Many, many times worse. However, both exist on a continuum and are not completely unrelated.

There was a notable political theorist whose name escapes me at the moment. Nonetheless he posed the question "when does a slave cease being a slave?" Let's suppose a person owns a person and forces him to work in the cotton fields seven days a week and whips and beats him daily. Clearly the person is a slave. But let's suppose he stops beating him every day and only beats him on the weekends. Not only that, but he doesn't make him work seven days a week but only makes him work five days a week. Is he still a slave? Obviously he is. The problem with slavery is that the person being enslaved is being forced by threat of violence to associate with his or her "master" against his or her will. If the slave master reduces the slaves work output to only three days a week and gives the slave four days off, is he still a slave? The answer of course is yes.

Now, suppose the slave master says "okay, you will not be forced to work on my plantation at all, but I will allow you to move out into the world and do what you wish. However, you will be forced through threat of violence to send me half of everything you earn as a tribute." While this is no doubt preferable to being forced to work in the cotton fields seven days a week and beaten every day, the real fundamental issue is being avoided. The fundamental issue which separates a slave from a non-slave is that a free person is one who has total self-ownership and whose associations with others are entirely voluntary. While every move towards being less of a slave is preferable, the fundamental issue is being avoided.

That is why an income tax, while absolutely and unequivocally far less egregious than chattel slavery, is still a form of slavery because the recipient of this income tax is being forced against his or her will to pay a percentage of his or her income under threat of violence and kidnapping (throwing you in jail if you refuse). The only time when a person is completely free is if their self ownership is respected and there are no lawful, unwanted assaults permitted against them.

I hope that is clear.

If it cannot be bought or sold, the self cannot be owned. Libertarianism must allow slavery if the self can be owned.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 09:57

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

jrodefeld posted:

And I don't think Walter Block makes a very persuasive case at all. But this has absolutely nothing to do with libertarian objection to slavery. Slavery is a historical phenomenon (which unfortunately persists to the present day in certain parts of the world) that all decent people oppose. Walter is describing a completely theoretical contractual sort of slavery that has never actually existed anywhere. So to cite Walter Block and then infer that libertarians are not sufficiently opposed to actual slavery, i.e. the sort that has actually historically occurred and continues to occur where people are kidnapped against their will, beaten and killed if they disobey is disingenuous in the extreme.

For the record, I support Murray Rothbard's opinion that voluntary slavery is an impossibility. In "The Ethics of Liberty", Rothbard writes:

I really think that this attempt at claiming libertarianism is somehow not opposed to slavery or indifferent to the issue is incredibly dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith. Even Walter Block's theoretical future "voluntary" slavery system is not supported by almost any other libertarian and, more importantly, is completely distinct from any actually existing phenomenon.

On the contrary, voluntary slavery was practiced in Rome, in the various empires of Mesopotamia prior to the Persian Empire, and is part of Chinese legendary tradition. It may have also been practiced in tribal and monarchical Israel and Judah. Edit: this is just off the top of my head.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 10:13

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Promontorium posted:

I honestly did not intend to talk down to you. You just happen to be so low that even while I'm on the ground, you're looking up. There. Now I have insulted you too. Are you done being a dumbfuck? Or is this literally all you're capable of?

Yo! You want intellectual discourse without any insults? Fine. I'll offer to go three rounds with you, in a semi-formal written debate. Proposition, response, counter-response. Quick and easy. You up for it?

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 02:52

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

No society anywhere in the world has ever subsisted on private charity. Instead, various forms of wealth rearrangement that exist on a formal level emerge, whether we are talking about villages or city-states. It's a ridiculous proposition from a historical point of view.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 02:53

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Promontorium posted:

Libertarianism isn't a historical state of man. Karl Marx argued for Communism as a new state that had never existed like many political theorists he laid out the various stages of human devleopment.. That doesn't stop people from speculating. Many political theories project into the future an ideal arrangement from Plato to Nietzsche. If Libertarianism had been tried, if it were historical, then it wouldn't be so frustratingly theoretical.

The majority of our history is tribalism. The majority of our history is cast aside as "the best we could do". We moved on to various oligarchical systems, and then the world grew more democratic.

I wholly admit I can't define how well, or if at all, such a society would work. But I would like to see it tried.

Well, then, buddy, don't use historical arguments.

By the way:

Effectronica posted:

Yo! You want intellectual discourse without any insults? Fine. I'll offer to go three rounds with you, in a semi-formal written debate. Proposition, response, counter-response. Quick and easy. You up for it?

You up for this?

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 03:00

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Promontorium posted:

I have many of his works. Thanks to a Marxist professor of mine at Cal. Who saw Marx in every subject.

I don't know what more you want. I think my quote is rather innocuous.

'Karl Marx argued for Communism as a new state that had never existed' -

Did Marx argue for Communism or not? If yes then I can move past this. If not, read Communist Manifesto.
Has Communism ever existed before Marx? If no, then I can move past this too. If so then I'm genuinely at a loss.
Did Marx argue for the rationality of Communism as a new kind of governance? If so, then I'm done. If not, then re-read what I wrote. The part about looking forward. Check out the paper yourself since you have it, notice how many times he says "new". For example "we do not attempt dogmatically to prefigure the future, but want to find the new world only through criticism of the old." Unless you think he's speaking literally, then metaphorically, the new world is the new philosophy.

What are you missing here? I was just pointing out Communism was a new idea that hasn't been established in history. What exactly are you missing?

On the one hand, there's the formal issue that you aren't putting things together, and on the other, you're failing to deal with "primitive communism" as laid out in the 1884 book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, written by Engels using Marx's notes as a working basis.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 03:38

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Promontorium posted:

I don't know what you mean. The quote that I apparently need to write an essay to explain was JUST, and ONLY meant to be an off-handed comment pointing out that political theories exist, and are shared, that do not, and have not had a historical context for. Particularly with ideologies that attempt to build on history, not repeat it. It was not any more important than that. Maybe I inadvertently opened a can of worms, but my point was as simple as I claim.

Primitive Communism is not Communism. It's an argument for principles within Communism that found Communism, but it references people who, for one, were very religious. That alone should be enough. I wasn't arguing that Karl Marx snapped his finger and all new ideas were born. Certainly for libertarianism, it is based on many many ancient practices and social orders. But for the practical argument that wasn't about Karl Marx or Communism but whether or not a society has existed without taxation or fiat spending the specifics a "libertarian" nor a "Communist" society have yet to exist. That alone isn't the end of a discussion. Since the topic isn't "ideologies that have existed in the past" but rather "what can we do?"

Primitive communism was, for Karl Marx, communism. This is because Marx defined communism in terms of what already was understood as communism, and so irreligiosity was secondary to the absence of private property and class structures, in his understanding of communism. So in this you're making a mistake, and you're also doing so in such a way as to ignore the many societies that existed without taxation or without currency, let alone "fiat money". The advantage of the proposal for a debate that you are consistently refusing to acknowledge is that it would allow you to gather together a whole set of thoughts to put into a single argument that can be treated at length and with time.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 03:58

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Promontorium posted:

Infinite feedback loop. I can see why no one wants to actually discuss ideology. You are so far into the weeds you will never surface. Rather than discussing ideas, it's round 10 of why one sentence in a post I made an hour ago isn't 100% right because I don't have Marx's library on hand (though I have most of it, and that's not enough) and even though what I wrote is factual, it's now round 3 of why I'm technically wrong because Iroquois were social people.

No, Primitive Communism WAS NOT Communism for Karl Marx. The primitives were religious. Marx emphasized atheism as a necessary component. That hasn't existed yet. That's it. Hasn't existed yet. Has NOT existed yet. My comment was factual. Primitive Communism IS NOT Communism. If it were, then everything Marx wrote was pointless. Which would render your argument meaningless on its foundation since you're arguing that a man proposing what he called a "new" philosophy and vehemently defended every aspect of, was actually definitively completed 1,000 years earlier and Marx wasn't needed at all, nor any of his arguments. Is that really the path you insist on going down? Just to deny me one sentence from a comment that had NOTHING to do with this?

"ignore the many societies that existed without taxation or without currency"

No, see, both libterarianism and Communism propose conditions without taxation or fiat spending. I see a difference between these two. I find those differences compelling. Which is why I'm discussing them. Not resolving that something vaguely similar to them has already existed. Because the topic wasn't about something vaguely similar, the topic was whether or not the exact thing had existed.

I'm sorry, you're being insulting. You said you wanted an intellectual conversation, you whiny little brat. Liars go to hell, sonny. Liars go to hell.

Your problem is that you are violently defending the thing you consider to be inconsequential, because, as far as I or any other person not endowed with telepathy can tell, you want to set up an equivalency between communism, or "Communism", (of which the reason for your incessant plague of capitalization may never be known,) and libertarianism. But, since that equivalency is not actually possible, you should probably move on to some other analogy, instead of throwing a hissy fit and stamping your feet and closing your eyes.

Furthermore, communism does not propose a condition without taxation inherently. The idea is that the State has dissolved away, but that does not preclude taxation. As an example of why the Haudenosaunee (what your paleface rear end calls the Iroquois) were considered as the example for primitive communism by Marx and Engels, the Haudenosaunee lacked a centralized State apparatus, but they nevertheless operated as essentially a command economy with a gigantic tax rate, indeed taking everything beyond people's tools and the most common goods. This in turn would be redistributed out through centralized warehouses via the clan and family systems. The only exception was through trade, which was not "taxed". However, in turn, the Haudenosaunee economy at levels above village production operated via a gift economy, and as a consequence, individual fruits of trading would in turn be redistributed through the economy as a whole.

This is another area in which your analogizing fails. A third area would be to point out that the Haudenosaunee did have "fiat currency", though wampum is not money as we understand it today and this would involve a lot of effort for someone in a conniption.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 04:28

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Promontorium posted:

Deeper into the weeds than I even thought possible. You've completely left the land. The Catcher in the rye failed to catch you. Nothing you've written here is remotely connected to my point, nor your failure to criticize my point. You just keep introducing more and more of topics. I might be insulting, but I am abiding. I tried very hard to address every point. And rather than addressing anything you just keep going deeper. You've actually gone past parody, since I made a satirical comment about the Iroquois and then you devoted a paragraph to them.

You have made "off topic" an art form.

This is why every single insult directed your way was justified. When someone pointed out why your argument was trash from a dumpster, using two in-depth examples and allusions to a third, you went ahead and, instead of engaging with someone pointing out why they believe your argument to be wrong, started spitting insults like they're seeds from the watermelons you gently caress, I mean, make love to.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 04:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 23:44

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Promontorium posted:

No. I actually addressed them directly in detail. Then you ignored them and changed the subject while building straw man arguments. Not the same thing. But at least you're actually addressing me this time and not going off on another irrelevant tangent. I can't follow you any further. This is not to insult, it's not a "right or wrong" thing. You just want to go further into topics I do not want to discuss. But childishly insult me all you want.

No, you didn't. You did not, at any point, substantively address that 1) Your conception of communism as understood by Karl Marx to be a phenomenon that had never existed previously was inaccurate, and did not address period that 2) Your conception of communism as disallowing taxation was inaccurate or 3) Your conception of communism as disallowing "fiat money" was inaccurate. You have decided to insist that these are tangents, but you, yourself, said that you wanted to discuss on the basis of communism and libertarianism both disallowing "fiat money" and taxation. Since that basis is a false one, your argument fails before it begins. Thus, you are either stupid, or intellectually too cowardly to address the thrust against the roots.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 04:53

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?