“imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”
Libertarianism wants to cut off the government’s feet, but it offers no solution to the problem of the boot-wearing wealthy. At least the government, in theory, answers to the people.
4 Likes
I don’t know… it’s kind of fun to watch the unfolding debate, even if he never changes his tune and continually uses the same assertions. I always like reading the replies to him, actually.
3 Likes
I don’t know I only know how I would act. I wouldn’t presume to speak for others.
Nope. I would like to see a private voluntary system. Whether it would be controlled by the wealthy is conjecture.
Fair enough.
I don’t think that’s true nor do I think most libertarians believe that. Most, IMO, think that government, or any centralized power structure, makes this more likely. Additionally, many libertarians don’t make a distinction about which groups hold and abuse power- they’re both undesirable.
Well, @wysinwyg and others are doing sterling work with the heavy lifting, so hunting with snark, as it were, is the alternative… 
2 Likes
I never said that I believed there was only one definition. So why did you comment about this. Why not discuss about possible definitions. It almost seems like you don’t want to discuss anything.
No I’m arguing that owners own their property. Disputes about property usage should be decided by property owners.
Don’t remember you asking that at all.
No, I use the idea of self-ownership to inform my ideas about ethics. Then use those ethics to determine the appropriateness of other actions.
“They all suffer from arrested development and generally do not have the ability to think things through in any fashion.”
My roomies act like children, although they are in their mid twenties. LOTS of sports and cartoons. I’ts like living with zombies or cardboard cut-out people.
“stupendous man said: Yes, people who advocate voluntary, non-violent interactions are bad.”
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I identify most cloesly with anarchist thought, in which any form of power over others is discouraged. Collaboration is the key, humility is the glue, and consent is the name of the game. Co-ersion and selfishness are frowned upon highly, and the state is always opposed as the ultimate tyranny. Unfortunately this world isn’t ready for the sort of bliss we coulb be experiencing. Now- back to your regular programming.
That sounds great!
That as well.
One issue. I don’t think selfishness is easy to define. Except for obvious actions, taking two pieces of cake when there was only enough for one per person, it seems like a subjective definition.
I’m with you there! I kind of like snarking in gif form, at least when I feel lazy, which today I do.
3 Likes
- You’ve admitted that markets require rules (I’ve used “boundary conditions” since I think it’s more general than “rules”) to operate. Those rules are seldom, if ever, the result of “spontaneous organization.”
- “Spontaneous organization” seems to be a thought-terminating cliche used to hide the fact that markets are shaped by their boundary conditions and the acts of individuals within those markets. Either the boundary conditions or the actions of individuals might be considered “boogeymen” – i.e. criticism of either might be justified depending on particulars. Your rhetorical ploy of conflating reasonable criticism with “railing against boogeymen” is noted and dismissed. (Markets themselves also have flaws that merit criticism.)
My argument doesn’t require all property owners to be rich nor that all poor people suffer. All that it requires is that some people don’t have access to the basic necessities of life (true) and that some people have a great deal more resources than the basic necessities of life (also true).
Is your argument (that property owners have a right to use their property, etc.) a moral axiom or do you justify it in some way?
The “so what” is that your arguments for libertarianism are, you claim, predicated on “voluntary, non-violent interactions.” I’ve argued that actually those interactions aren’t really voluntarily and now you’ve admitted that I’m correct about this.
You seemed to be arguing that I should prefer to participate in the market economy even if by doing so I could not obtain the basic necessities of life. If you were doing so then my point stands because this amounts to asserting that people should literally sacrifice themselves “for the good of the market”. (The collective in this case is “the market”.) If not then I misunderstood you.
The second sentence here is simply false. For any existing business it’s better to limit choices than to promote them. Monopolies make better margins than businesses in competitive markets for the most part. For some market actors more choices might be better. (Although recent psychological studies suggest that more choices actually causes more stress and less happiness, interestingly enough.) For others – particularly for powerful market actors – limiting choice may actually be the preferred state of affairs.
You can’t rape the willing.
It’s fundamental to your particular ethical system which seems to be predicated on circular definitions anyway. There’s any number of ways one can morally justify bodily autonomy while still admitting use of force is more complicated than the simple dichotomy you’re drawing.
5 Likes
The solution is also not a rebranded Republican.
1 Like
You’re not providing any evidence here that your efforts would be higher, but keep on with the contentless sanctimony, I’m sure it would have been a stunning insight
Selfishness is what civilization is all about, imho. There is no need to hoard goods in order to have power over your peers. Everywhere in nature this is apparent- except within the realm of modern human societies. Selfishness is telling a man he cannot catch a fish when he is hungry, build a shelter for himself when he is cold. It is calling this mine and that yours rather than calling everything ours. True social responsibility arises from a sense of shared stewardship of the earth and her resources, not from the selfish capatalist ethos that informs libertarian philosophy. The self-made man is a myth. This is just my opinion. It stinks just like the rest of 'em, but it works for me.
3 Likes
Umm, I’ve been discussing things this entire time. I proposed a model of ownership. You objected and what you seemed to do was to offer an alternative model of ownership.
However, that alternative model of ownership was flawed because, as I pointed out, it was defined circularly.
I haven’t done anything to stop you from offering a non-circular model of ownership. You’ve declined to offer one. Voluntarily one might say. This one is completely on you.
Yes, I asked what that means. You provided an unsatisfactory response. I pointed out that the response was unsatisfactory. Now you seem to be mad at me that you haven’t given a satisfactory answer to what it means that “owners own their property”.
Well, no. I said it’s predicated on the threat of force by government agents (e.g. police and the courts). You disagreed and offered an unsatisfactory alternative as explained above.
BUT WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID was that ownership is when you can ethically use proportional force to stop someone from taking your stuff. But under what circumstances can you ethically use proportional force to stop someone from taking your stuff? If you say “when you own it” that’s circular.
Feel free to actually answer the criticism at any point. That would be stupendous.
5 Likes
Then what are they the result of?
Everything is shaped by boundaries. Markets evolve within their boundaries. OK
Sure one could criticize boundaries and individual actions but the markets themselves don’t have characteristics that lend themselves to criticism. There’s no central organization.
And my thinking is that free markets are the best method to minimize this.
It seems to be self-evident, if a property owner can’t control their property then they don’t own it. Ownership implies control. The only justification I would use is based on self-ownership- I own my body, thus my labor and any resources acquired via labor. What I own I control.
No, I admitted that there are some conditions that are already in place that we must work within. I compare these conditions to natural law- of course they’re changeable but only through the current rules. Unfortunate but railing against them would be counter productive, meaningless even.
No that’s not what I meant. I was speaking about current market actors not actors who may be non-participants. Current actors want more choice.
Businesses aren’t the only market actors.
For example? Force is pretty simple to understand, you keep saying it’s more complicated without explaining why.
It’s not so much a conjecture as an inference drawn from historical evidence.
Which seems really fucking silly to me. It’s like saying the social democratic state of Sweden is just as bad as the USSR because the poor Swedes have to pay such high taxes. It seems to me there’s an obvious difference between power wielded by elected officials who can be voted out of office and power wielded by completely unaccountable private individuals.
7 Likes
Unfortunately, Charlie talks about Bitcoin as though it is a currency replacement, rather than simply the penny in the new world order of currency.
1 Like
Have you ever inhaled an aeresolized tautology? Of course not, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. Picture throwing a truckload of poison ivy on a raging bonfire, with added self-reinforcing redundancies that are, prima facie, self-evidentally true. Only you’ve sucked down an entire asthma MDI, first.
2 Likes
Yes and that doesn’t preclude other definitions.
I’m sorry but I must have missed it. It seemed you were just offering examples of property disputes not definitions of ownership.
Woah, I’m completely calm. Where did you get the idea that I’m mad?
You seem to not read your own comments. Just above you are discussing the idea of different definitions which I’ve also commented about previously. Additionally, I agreed it could be used to define ownership but never said it was the only definition. Ability to use what one’s property is a better definition, IMO. Using force to protect property is a result of this idea.
We disagree. I think the inference is that power attracts the wealthy.
I guess it would if one didn’t realize it was a generalization. Who wouldn’t think that different types of government would result in better or worse living conditions? The same would apply to non-government groups.
So, since initiating of force is always wrong, you own what you can either persuade everyone to leave you with or physically block them from using your body. In the example of bread, you lose ownership the moment you put it down and I decide I should take it. Finders keepers after all?
Which goes with my point (b). Something entirely contrary to how things have gone in practice, presented with no acknowlegement why that might be so.
3 Likes
