Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

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

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I think some property rights are good, because it is nice to have a home and privacy and the ability to accumulate stuff for a rainy day, or to better yourself in the long term, etc. However, I would agree that the well being of humans is a more important factor; not, perhaps, to the absolute limit, but certainly to the point where if a modest infringement on property rights creates a very great increase in human welfare, it is a good policy.

I'm a statist, aren't I?

# ¿ Oct 9, 2015 23:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 21:46

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

DrProsek posted:

3) If the minimum wage were abolished, would you start looking for one of the new $3/hr jobs? If not, are you holding out for $4/hr job, or will you just grab the first $2.50/hr job you can find?

This one always kills me (and it may yet literally kill me later in life!) because it seems to suggest that SOMEHOW there would be some inherent virtue, to the worker, to work at these wages. And that there would be this sudden flood of such jobs opening up.

In the face of zero minimum wage, what I imagine would happen first is that most of the current minimum wage workers would be put on some ruinously low pay rate. Perhaps, maybe, there would be a slight expansion of positions (also at these comically low, insulting wages) but the idea that somehow it is virtuous to produce value for the guy who owns the Burger King franchise and earn $16 a day is axiomatic for these people.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2015 02:19

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

ToxicSlurpee posted:

A common assumption is that the higher you make the minimum wage the more you eliminate jobs. So reducing the minimum wage will by default employ more people as jobs would be created that otherwise would not because it is not profitable to pay people the current minimum wage to do certain things. Because there are more jobs there are more people buying things which will no doubt stimulate the economy and drive all wages up overall. Supposedly it will create a feedback loop that will usher in a magical era of prosperity for everybody.

This works if you ignore, you know, all the reasons and history that led to the existence of a minimum wage in the first place.

Well there probably is a minimum wage that carves heavily into jobs, but I suspect it is significantly north of $8.25 an hour. I have no idea what it is, of course. I'd say getting it up to $15/hour and seeing what happens is a good way to see.

This also privileges the idea of "employing more people" as an inherent good, with the assumption that menial work for $2/hour is somehow exalting to the spirit or provides anything other than "cheap janitorial services" to the employer.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2015 04:26

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

rudatron posted:

I'm going to go out on a limb, and suggest jrodefeld is a libertarian because he has a fetish for Great Leaders, which conversely leads to a disdain for committees or popular rule, because these programs stifle individual ambitions (by design). The idea of 'power corrupting' is ignored, and substituted with 'being poor is corrupting' - giving rule to 'mobs' under this framework is suicidal (Bread and circuses! Flatscreen TVs! etc etc). Everything else, first-owner-principle, non-aggression-principle, whatever pseudo-scientific bullshit is deployed, is centered around the goal of justifying the demobilization of mass politics. To put the genie back in the bottle.

I had a libertarian for a US Government teacher back when I was doing my pre-requisites at a community college. He made great hay out of saying you vote with your dollars and that counts way more than your mere votes in an election, pshaw, they're all the same anyway. I think there's really something to this.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2015 22:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Regarding "no libertarian supporting a fascist police state," many did - ask a Chilean.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2015 09:42

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

DarklyDreaming posted:

What really works about this logic is watching Libertarians explain how Hong Kong is proof that unfettered capitalism is the way to go but the Irish Potato famine is the result of all that filthy statism in the air

Statism must always fail; for if it should succeed, none dare call it Statism

# ¿ Oct 11, 2015 19:37

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Who What Now posted:

You, like all libertarians, do not and have never actually believed in the Non-Aggression Principal. You are more than willing to defend and even participate in unwarranted aggression if you believe you can get away with it. Your other posts extolling the virtues of lynch mobs proves this. You are immoral to your core, but are held in check by your cowardice.

I think Dilbert covered this; you want everyone to adhere, with religious devotion, to the non-aggression principle, so that you and your half-life war boys will have the advantage of overwhelming surprise.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2015 22:35

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Has Jrode compensated his mother for occupying her self for ten months, to say nothing of additional labor and similar costs entailed in the begetting of a child? Have they negotiated the contract? Clearly significant monies are owed as compensation, though the details, perhaps, may vary.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 02:41

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Utilitarianism itself even acknowledges that it's more of a philosophical set of guidelines that one can use to understand morality rather than a set of hard and fast rules. Morality in general has a lot of grey areas, edge cases, and hard choices. If literally murdering somebody would make the rest of the world happier is it acceptable to do it? Perhaps it's a bit cliche but if you knew WW2 was happening and assassinating Hitler before he did Hitlery things would it be OK? In retrospect yeah murdering Hitler before he came to power would probably have been a good thing but how would you justify that when he was a common soldier? We're talking pre-political career Hitler.

What would seem to be an efficient way to do things is to find the fellow and have a long chat with him, buy him a few dinners (he was rather poor) and show him some historical materials telling him what, exactly, is the path that he has taken in the future from whence you have come. Perhaps suggest that he put his energy into the Salvation Army or something.

If nothing else the results would be psychologically interesting.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 08:18

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Wasn't one of the Ayn Rand heroes a pirate who sunk foreign aid shipments?

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 08:02

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

GunnerJ posted:

It's easy to forget sometimes that it's basically pulp scifi with free energy engines, cloaking devices, magic wonder-metals, and earthquake makers.

Man, when Dick Seaton invented that poo poo he went to another planet and got into a war. He even brought his buddy and their wives. Later they blew up the chlorine-breathers because they were assholes.

Objectivists must be really lazy.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2015 07:49

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

YF19pilot posted:

I'm feeling disenchanted with the party that I was raised to vote for, but I'm not sure that I want to vote for their opponents either. Two party system really sucks.

While this is going back a ways, I'm curious how come this would be different if there were more political parties.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2015 23:15

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

"Time Preference of the Negroids" sounds like the title of a rejected Doctor Who story.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 20:13

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

theshim posted:

Members of the Blue Spruce clan approach your ring. "Your weaponthane, Jrodefeld, has slain one of our people on the road for no reason at all and refuses to pay the weregild. We demand that you give him up to face justice, or convince him to pay."

When asked, Jrodefeld says "The Blue Spruces were aggressing on Orlanthi property by walking with a higher degree of time preference on my road, thus lowering its value. I did only as Orlanth himself would have done, and protected that which is mine."

1) "Jrodefeld is no Orlanthi, and you may do with him as you please."
2) Force Jrodefeld to pay weregild, violating the NAP.
3) Outlaw Jrodefeld.
4) "We will deal with him ourselves."
5) "Ron Paul end the Fed."

What does the ring advise?

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 23:43

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

What happens when a DRO decides to declare that, say, only it is allowed to operate at the Citadel, Gas Town, and the Bullet Farm?

# ¿ Oct 30, 2015 06:30

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I assume history did not exist prior to the creation of the State, doubtless by the Demiurge.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2015 08:50

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

VitalSigns posted:

It's pretty amazing that DROs are able to exact swift and unerring justice (and preemptive justice like forcing your daughter to wear a GPS ankle bracelet and virgin alarm) with overwhelming force, but also they are nothing but unarmed accountants and actuaries because after all why would they need weapons when no rational individual would ever commit a crime?

Well of course they'd all be heavily armed, this is a libertarian society. And everyone else would be too. I guess your daughter wouldn't shoot the people forcing a virgin alarm on her because that would invalidate her insurance, so she's forced to grimly accept your will out of economic necessity. Human freedom!

# ¿ Oct 30, 2015 09:11

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

TheRamblingSoul posted:

Yeah, it reminds me of the similar conservative (read: racist) argument as to why single-payer nationalized healthcare only works in homogeneous countries and never could be possible in the U.S.

Strangely, I never saw a "You Must Be This Asian to Ride" sign when I got quality, cheap healthcare when I was in Taiwan, so who knows?

What is very funny to me in a way is that this is usually cited as some kind of axiomatic fact, as opposed to say a post-hoc rationalization of many Americans being quite racist, and being unwilling to improve their situation if it will also help minorities.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2015 04:44

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

CommieGIR posted:

They don't even bother with actual data, either, and have been pretty clear that regardless of the data, their theories cannot fail only be failed.

It seems that instead of saying a sort of action or outcome is bad, it is only one particular form of the expression of action (government doing a thing) is bad. Any outcome is permissible, as long as it does not come from governmental force or power being expressed.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2015 01:51

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

ToxicSlurpee posted:

That or all the fun effects of mercantilism or my personal favorite; obscenely wealthy people hoarding gold to increase its value then using it to buy lots of land only to flood the market with gold to debase everybody else's wealth. Then hey gently caress you they own all the land you'll pay them to work on it or starve to death.

I believe this is considered a feature, not a bug.

One theory I heard about the whole purestrain thing is that when the US goes back on the Gold Standard, they'll just declare that all dollars presently extant are valued at the gold in Fort Knox or whatever, which would presumably increase the price of gold by about two orders of magnitude. This is probably very appealing when your largest assets are three one-ounce krugerrands.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2015 04:15

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

jrodefeld posted:

We forget that behind the username is a real human being with complexities and, hopefully, an earnest interest in uncovering truth and empathy for their fellow man which informs their good-faith beliefs on what constitutes a just society.

For instance, a just society in which some of those real human beings with complexities, earnest investments in uncovering truth, empathy for their fellow-man, etc. should be owned as chattel property by other of those human beings?

jrodefeld posted:

Also, I know this is a comedy forum but as it relates to my threads, I'd really like to limit the amount of substance-less posts that consist of riffs or attempts at cheap-shot humor. I'm really interested in comparing and contrasting political beliefs.

Perhaps you should provide us value, either in the form of regular responses or money.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2015 07:45

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

jrodefeld posted:

There must be a coherent and consistent theory of who has just claim over what scarce resource in order to sort out these complicated matters. That is why the theory of original appropriation is so important.

Such as when we originally appropriate you for purposes of slavery? (PS, this post constitutes such appropriation; if you refuse you are initiating force)

Also, if original appropriation is the case, this continent belongs to the surviving Indians; please report to your nearest Rez for your reparatory servitude.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2015 08:45

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

jrodefeld posted:

Glad to be back (I think?).

It's funny what you guys grasp onto and hammer away at me about. By citing in passing the Cato study on economic freedom in different nations throughout the world, you choose to pick out a couple entries on the the list and cite the various ways in which those nations are NOT free and demand that I answer for their failings and further assert that somehow I am claiming that the United States ought to emulate the policies of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

You can easily read about how and why Cato made this list and what metrics were used to judge the different nations. What is clear is that this is a list of economically free countries. Personal liberties were not considered in this particular study. Of course libertarians care about personal and social liberty just as much, if not more, than we care about economic liberty, but this particular study limited it's scope to economic liberty, i.e. how easy it is to start a business, respect for private property rights and effective and efficient legal systems for arbitrating disputes. These are vitally important factors in the development of societal wealth.

At the same time, some of these countries have very draconian anti-gay laws, laws against drugs and prostitution and other infringements on civil liberties. None of these countries are libertarian, or are cited as such. What I intended by citing this study was to demonstrate the value that the liberalization of markets has had in the development of wealth in various countries of the world. If you look at the entire list, you see a trend. The countries at the top of the list are wealthier and have a higher average living standard than those lower on the list. The reason for this is primarily greater economic freedom.

I absolutely concede that if you are gay, or are a racial minority, or are a drug user or adherent to any sort of alternative lifestyle you would have more social freedom in the United States than you would in many of these countries. But that is not what this study is meant to demonstrate.

Excuse me, I realize you are unfamiliar with this but I declared you to be my property earlier in the thread and I would really appreciate it if you could stop initiating force and produce some economic returns for me post-haste. If you do not I am afraid I am going to have to contact the DRO to deal with your intolerable impingement on my property rights.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2015 10:07

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Who What Now posted:

Jrod has gone on record that there's no way the native Americans were using that much land. I mean, let she serious here, most of them didn't even have fences! And it doesn't count if you don't have a fence.

If he's got time enough to post he's got time enough to get me my money, I say. Especially if he's posting such ignorant poo poo.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 00:43

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Infinite Karma posted:

Actually, this philosophy supports seizing property from current owners and giving it to people who will use it better. I'm changing my mind, libertarian ethics sound pretty alright to me.

More like "people who are whiter" :v:

Wasn't there some movement which actually argued that all land should be nationally held, and instead of an income tax, everyone would pay basically some rental tax because they didn't make that planet they were using, but they DID make/buy/whatever their various improvements?

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 01:15

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

jrodefeld posted:

"Property", as I am using it, refers only to rules which determine who has the right to control what scarce resource. The "rules" of Marxism thus are a type of property right. I'd strongly argue that they are incorrect and incoherent, but they are a system of property rights nonetheless. The surplus property of the more well off is more justly the property of the less well off according to the theory. We are really arguing over definitions. You are disputing my characterization of Marxism as having a theory of property rights, but we are speaking about the same thing regardless.

I didn't declare you my property a few pages back so you could post about Marxism or whatever. Where is my money? Why are you initiating force against me? You failed to dispute the master-slave relationship, so I have no choice but to consider it binding.

If you don't shape up I'll sell you to Caros. (Hey Caros, wanna buy a libertarian? Ain't like he's worn out from working hard!)

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 05:54

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

TLM3101 posted:

Do you know, I actually felt bad for a second when I used that image? And then he launched into that comparison. At this point, I'm just waiting for JRode to start into a lecture on how phrenology proves that the negroes are totally different from and inferior to the white man. My comparison may actually have been unfair to Candie!

For one thing, Candie actually had a conversation with an Austrian.

Hey Rodefeld, since you're not going to bring in my laundry or anything useful: I heard a pithy quote once saying that "libertarians are anarchists that want police protection from their slaves." This seems pretty valid - in that it seems like this is a structure designed to make it so that people with property (mostly, those who have it now) get to have more, and be specifically protected, on a presumably permanent basis, from those who don't.

So what I suppose I'd ask here is: As a non-property-haver, what (other than some support for things like legalizing/decriminalizing drugs etc.) does libertarian thought offer me? What benefit will accrue to me? Seems like I'd be acting in my rational self-interest to support socialist policies which will bring me some degree of wealth/property as opposed to casino tickets to a rigged game.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 11:37

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

jrodefeld posted:

One thing that has been made abundantly clear though is that you all don't actually know the definition of the word "racist", which might be important for a group that lobs that particular accusation with such reckless abandon.

Please educate us lesser folk with the blinding light of your superior libertarian intellect, so that we may get ~~Jesus~~ liberty and be ~~saved~~ free to own slaves.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2015 03:44

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

paragon1 posted:

Not sure how I feel about organizing a two minutes hate but hey there's a first time for everything. I want to make it clear that I don't expect jrod to attend or for it even to mostly be specifically about him (though it might turn out that way). I'll be putting up a google doc for suggestions on the structure of the thing at about the same time I put up one to try to arrange a time.

I prefer to think of it as a "Thunderdome."

By busting a deal (to not be a lovely poster,) jrode has chosen to face the wheel.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2015 06:14

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

VitalSigns posted:

When you've got Ayn loving Rand saying "whoa bro, you're giving businesses too much power over people", it's time to think things over a bit more.

Obviously this means Rand just didn't really understand freedom, perhaps being held back by the corrupting influence of her womb.

Bryter posted:

This is a really good point. Also worth drawing attention to is that even when something's been figured out, that doesn't exactly translate into an immediate consumer reaction. A link between smoking and poor health was suspected by some doctors as early as the 19th century, a direct link with cancer was postulated in the 1910s, that link was confirmed in Germany in the 1930s, those findings were replicated numerous times throughout the 40s and 50s, became the official position of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1957, and yet as late as the 60s only a third of doctors believed the link was established and as for consumers:

I bet that graph looks great in libertopia!

Germany in the 30s eh? So you're saying HITLER doesn't want you to smoke? Well smoke up! For freedom!

# ¿ Nov 21, 2015 18:25

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Cemetry Gator posted:

Yeah. So the private company who has a reason to keep the power grid well maintained and to be prepared for massive hurricanes completely dropped the loving ball. Meanwhile, the roads and poo poo that the government was responsible for was handled pretty well.

Well the theory of the action axiom directly states that the free market will always provide a superior solution, so your mere empirical evidence must be imperfectly understood or misrepresented by statist gnomes.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2015 22:43

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

RuanGacho posted:

Another problem is that everyone with a libertarian bent wants to micromanage how taxes are spent and the only one they curiously never have any issue with is public safety aka men with guns.

Somehow God does not strike them down with thunderbolts made of raw irony.

I am kind of surprised, really, because they endorse the sole valid function for a state being "protection of private property," as opposed to the much more ancient pursuits of political groups, such as "promotion of agriculture" or "religious reasons."

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 10:01

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Jrod do you see what you've loving done? You've presented a use case for Google Plus!

# ¿ Nov 26, 2015 01:25

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

paragon1 posted:

Yeah, that is...interesting. It wouldn't be the first time they've tried co-opting rhetoric from another ideology.

A lot of the founding fathers of movement conservatism "flirted with campus socialism" which basically meant "we realized we could succeed better at destroying our enemy, liberal society, from the right than from the left." Or possibly that they were all deep-cover Soviet agents meant to undermine America from within, sort of like Ayn Rand :getin:

# ¿ Nov 28, 2015 02:11

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I think that praexology is designed to axiomatically be incapable of disproof, as it claims to work out from "humans act," meaning that any refutation of it involves a human engaging in an action, therefore vindicating the theory. Presumably only Buddha-mind or the involvement of a Klingon could defeat it.

You are also not allowed to speak about it until you have read 3000 pages of literature and watched forty hours of lecturing on the matter, which you should not protest, as these materials are freely available at no financial charge, and time has no actual value.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 04:28

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Muscle Tracer posted:

Humans act
Many humans act in a way that is counter to their wellbeing (e.g. engaging in discourse with one of the lesser races)
Therefore, humans cannot be trusted to act in their own best interest
Only I can be trusted to act in the best interest of mankind
Heil HHH

No, says the true Reigns.

I can.

I will.

Belee dat.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2015 04:41

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Jrod, would you kindly address some of these previous criticisms?

# ¿ Jan 18, 2016 02:11

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Where'd this pirate DVD thing come from, I feel there is forum history I have missed

# ¿ Jan 18, 2016 03:11

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Are those films public domain or what

Also, what is the most libertarian kung fu movie, JRode? Can you tell us which ones feature the master charging the student for the value of his teaching and training him in the Sovereign Citizen Fist?

# ¿ Jan 18, 2016 03:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 21:46

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I remember L. Neil Smith once said that if we had zero taxes, everyone would have twice as much money. But everyone they'd trade with would also have twice as much money. So we'd be able to trade twice as much! So 2x2x2 = 8; we'd all be eight times richer if we had no taxes! What do you think, jrod?

# ¿ Jan 18, 2016 04:09

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

«‹›4 »