|
The Inaugural Failure After making GBS threads up the US Politics May thread with my ethics discussion it was suggested that it be taken to its own thread. This is that thread. The scope of this thread is to discuss ethical and moral systems. It is not a policy thread and although it may be necessary to use historical or policy examples, they should not be the focus of debate. To start, I suppose posters should outline their ethical system or moral foundations. I will be using a pastebin link because gently caress that noise, but try to keep them concise. You should probably either post your own framework or identify with someone else's before you start debating, so others know where you are coming from, but if it doesn't turn out to be an issue, then that's cool too. This is a terrible OP, I'm sorry for wasting Snr's server space. HAVE AT IT
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
So here's my go at it http://pastebin.com/ZtYTzXiU Fairly standard anarcho-capitalism, basically.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
So your entire ethical philosophy seems to rest on the inviolability of property rights and the objective requirement to define ownership based on first appropriation of land. It would seem to follow that no one in America has the right to the land they own, whether they inherited it from the colonists or bought it, so it looks to me like the only justifiable thing is to either return it or pay compensation to the heirs of the original owners, using every available means to track them down, yet...oddly...you oppose this. Why? Keep in mind that you've already said that no appeal to practicality can justify a violation of property rights. Ever.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
absolem posted:Could you elaborate as to why not? That's a question with as many answers as there are non-libertarian theories of ethics. As a simple example I'll refer you to Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So your entire ethical philosophy seems to rest on the inviolability of property rights and the objective requirement to define ownership based on first appropriation of land. Not all american land was owned (you can use it and not own it by virtue of not wanting it). If someone showed me that something I owned was actually owned by someone else, I would surrender it to them at once and so too should everyone else. That isn't the same as a blanket reparation.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
How would you respond to someone who rejects that property rights even exists, much less are the wellspring from which all other rights come?absolem posted:Not all american land was owned (you can use it and not own it by virtue of not wanting it). Prove that Native Americans did not want the land. This is a bald assertion with no backing.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
absolem posted:If someone showed me that something I owned was actually owned by someone else, I would surrender it to them at once and so too should everyone else. That isn't the same as a blanket reparation. Okay, but some historical injustices are well-documented. For example, the territories owned by the tribes forced on the Trail of Tears.  So what if we start with that? Shouldn't all that land be returned to the descendants of those who were displaced by force from it? absolem posted:Not all american land was owned (you can use it and not own it by virtue of not wanting it). Your definition of property rights does not appear to allow for this. Is this an Ayn Rand style "oh but they were savages so they didn't understand ownership of the land they were making a living on" argument or are you really arguing that Native Americans didn't really want their land after all and were happy to hand it over to white people pointing guns at them? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:06 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
At the very least America needs to be returned to Britain, they were violently forced out which was hideously immoral.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, but some historical injustices are well-documented. For example, the territories owned by the tribes forced on the Trail of Tears. Yes, it should be. A lot of that sort of thing ought to be done, and it all ought to have been done yesterday, but for some reason no one listens to me when I tell them this stuff... Who What Now posted:How would you respond to someone who rejects that property rights even exists, much less are the wellspring from which all other rights come? Many tribes had no concept of ownership Anyway, I'll just move somewhere were no natives lived and I'll be fine (hopefully)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Lemming posted:At the very least America needs to be returned to Britain, they were violently forced out which was hideously immoral. I think you mean returned to the Amerindians...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
absolem posted:I think you mean returned to the Amerindians... No, I'm talking about the theoretical places that they didn't already own, according to you. Even if that were the case, Britain is the moral owner of America, so anything you own really belongs to them. If you're going to be consistent in your world view, you need to return everything you own to them, since you're not a British citizen and you have no moral claim to it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
What about all of the land of the Mexican Cession? I'd say that Mexico was coerced into signing the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Would you give up your property if you lived in the Western United States?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Lemming posted:No, I'm talking about the theoretical places that they didn't already own, according to you. Even if that were the case, Britain is the moral owner of America, so anything you own really belongs to them. If you're going to be consistent in your world view, you need to return everything you own to them, since you're not a British citizen and you have no moral claim to it. Only in cases where englishmen owned property that was taken from them. The english gov't or whatever has no claim to anything of that sort. Shibby0709 posted:What about all of the land of the Mexican Cession? I'd say that Mexico was coerced into signing the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Would you give up your property if you lived in the Western United States? Yes, same with hawaii, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
absolem posted:Many tribes had no concept of ownership Bullshit, prove it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
quote:-I agree with previous users: Hoppe transcends the is-ought dichotomy. His ethic doesn’t establish a system Hoppe's a psycho, you're just a white male in your twenties. Get over it
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
I might respond more later, but I want to share a very pertinent quote that had an impact on me when I was going through the same situation you seem to be now. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -Richard P. Feynman At a certain point, its important to step back from your theory, stop trying to improve it, and take a long hard look at it, and then ask yourself "Does this reflect the reality of the situation?" Improving your model, by virtue solely of making it more consistent and more stable, is not worth anything if it moves you further from the truth of the situation - its psychologically rewarding, sure, but you need to stop and think about what the purpose of it is. I am assuming you are young, and have had pretty limited experiences in lots of ways, but that you are still open to change. Everyone should be, no matter how old they are, but being young does make it a bit more likely.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Also, since you seem to respond to seperate posts between separate points, here's this again:Who What Now posted:How would you respond to someone who rejects that property rights even exists, much less are the wellspring from which all other rights come?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
absolem posted:Only in cases where englishmen owned property that was taken from them. The english gov't or whatever has no claim to anything of that sort. Hm sorry yeah they did, the colonists had contracts with the English government or companies when they came over, with the understanding that they could use the land as long as they agreed to do things like pay taxes. They stopped doing that and rebelled, which is very immoral, so the colonists were very violent towards the English government. I'm sorry you don't want to give up your stolen property, but I find your immoral acts extremely objectionable.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
absolem posted:Many tribes had no concept of ownership Wait, but this doesn't matter, according to you. What matters is that they were using the land (and they were) and that they didn't want to leave. quote:Over external resources (we have already determined that exclusive use is inevitable and that violence is unjustifiable), we only have to determine how we know who owns what. Subjective (subject-dependent) norms have some difficulties – two individuals could consistently make a claim to the same resource and both be “right” (and wrong) at the same time, because these claims have no logical justifications (they’re just based in subjective preferences). So only objective claims are justifiable, and the only objective claim that is justifiable is that a resource belongs to whoever first appropriated it You can't just say they didn't understand ownership the way you do and leave it at that. You claim your ethics are a priori, universal, and objective. So it's wrong to take by force something a Native American is clearly using regardless of whether he has read his Hoppe. absolem posted:Yes, it should be. A lot of that sort of thing ought to be done, and it all ought to have been done yesterday, but for some reason no one listens to me when I tell them this stuff... Oh so you do believe in reparations for historical wrongs. Well all right then, why shouldn't the federal and state governments pay reparations for the depredations of slavery (which they established in law and perpetuated by naked force), or Separate But Equal, or Jim Crow, or any of that? The US and State Governments are continuous entities, so we can still hold them financially liable for past crimes even if the officials who implemented them are dead. You wouldn't say that the Ford Corporation could get out if its legal liabilities simply by changing management or waiting until everyone in charge at the time dies, would you?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
absolem posted:
So everything that you own that comes from anyplace in the United States in which the land was taken by force, which is everywhere in the United States, must be returned to their rightful owner because it is stolen property, right? You can very easily track where most of the products you own were created and assembled. Are you going to go through your belongings and return your stolen property or are you going to be implicit in their theft? If you choose to retain your property are you therefore violating the NAP of the original owners of the land and all of its bounty? Does that mean that they have the absolute right to reobtain their property, even through violent means? Would it be moral for me to contact the various representatives of the peoples who originally owned the land and inform them that you have hereby donated all of your property to their ownership? I seriously don't understand.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Bullshit, prove it. I'd rather just give it back, if its all the same to you Lemming posted:Hm sorry yeah they did, the colonists had contracts with the English government or companies when they came over, with the understanding that they could use the land as long as they agreed to do things like pay taxes. They stopped doing that and rebelled, which is very immoral, so the colonists were very violent towards the English government. I'm sorry you don't want to give up your stolen property, but I find your immoral acts extremely objectionable. Well, then we better go and make sure the saxons and angles give back all the land they took from the celts. Who What Now posted:Also, since you seem to respond to seperate posts between separate points, here's this again: With a debate, if it was appropriate, but otherwise no differently GlyphGryph posted:I might respond more later, but I want to share a very pertinent quote that had an impact on me when I was going through the same situation you seem to be now. I just read "Surely you must be joking" again. Feynman is one of my favorite people. It seems that my theory lines up fine with "dah real wurld" VitalSigns posted:Your definition of property rights does not appear to allow for this. Is this an Ayn Rand style "oh but they were savages so they didn't understand ownership of the land they were making a living on" argument or are you really arguing that Native Americans didn't really want their land after all and were happy to hand it over to white people pointing guns at them?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
absolem posted:I'd rather just give it back, if its all the same to you Yes, according to you. But I'm not actually interested in that. You're the one who's just admitted that you're living an immoral life, where you're admitting you're using property that you know for a fact is stolen. Why are you such a poo poo, according to your own moral framework? Give everything you own back to the rightful owners. absolem posted:My plan is that if I'm ever shown that something I claim to own is in fact owned by someone else, that I will immediately surrender it to them and offer to pay them back in the hope that they don't put me in the mines for the rest of my life (and also recommend that everyone else does likewise). see my post in response to vitalsigns C'mon, man, put up or shut up.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
absolem posted:Many tribes had no concept of ownership Many tribes had no concept of individual land ownership, but that's not the only way property rights can work. This, in itself, should indicate that any philosophy derived from the primacy of individual property ownership is suspect.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
absolem posted:I'd rather just give it back, if its all the same to you So why haven't you? Come on, man, be the change you want to see.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Shibby0709 posted:What about all of the land of the Mexican Cession? I'd say that Mexico was coerced into signing the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Would you give up your property if you lived in the Western United States? Actually Mexico really does have a very strong claim to the Southwest, don't they? Like, an "actually, yes, this was seized by force and should be ours, open and shut" kind of case.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yes, according to you. But I'm not actually interested in that. You're the one who's just admitted that you're living an immoral life, where you're admitting you're using property that you know for a fact is stolen. Why are you such a poo poo, according to your own moral framework? Give everything you own back to the rightful owners. I'm not though. I have no clue if any native groups owned my land, but I have a pretty good idea that no one else did. I guess another thing is that poo poo doesn't automatically transfer to your kids. Property can be assumed to be transfered to the kid, but anything else isn't their fault
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
absolem posted:Anyway, I'll just move somewhere were no natives lived and I'll be fine (hopefully) You'll have to leave the New World to accomplish this feat, since literally no part of the Americas was uninhabited.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
absolem posted:I'm not though. I have no clue if any native groups owned my land, but I have a pretty good idea that no one else did. I always have loved how libertarians get around this stolen property idea by maintain that because you received what was effectively stolen but didn't know it you should be able to keep it. You know like if your dad stole some artwork from a museum, and then he dies you should definitely be able to keep the artwork he stole.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
absolem posted:I'm not though. I have no clue if any native groups owned my land, but I have a pretty good idea that no one else did. absolem posted:Those are two separate issues. 1) Using stolen goods is wrong because you are using them without the true owner's permission. 2) benefiting from marginalization et al is not wrong, as long as you aren't doing #1. In the case of finding out you've been doing #1 you are obligated to stop using the stolen goods. You are not obligated to do anything else, but you definitely should, in case the angry true owner comes after you for damages. I'm super disappointed in you, buddy, your land belongs to the English government and you aren't willing to give it back. They were willing to give land to certain colonists under certain conditions, but when the colonists violently violated their contract and rebelled, then the property naturally returns to the English government. You're using known stolen goods when we know who the true owner is, so you yourself said you're obligated to stop using those goods.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
absolem posted:Property can be assumed to be transfered to the kid, but anything else isn't their fault Why?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I always have loved how libertarians get around this stolen property idea by maintain that because you received what was effectively stolen but didn't know it you should be able to keep it. You know like if your dad stole some artwork from a museum, and then he dies you should definitely be able to keep the artwork he stole. How the hell am I supposed to give it back to someone I don't even know existed? Also, do I need to change the OP so you fools have to post ideas of your own instead of just bashing me? Its not that I don't enjoy the debate, its just annoying to have you people act like my ideas are poo poo while 1)not doing a very good job and 2)probably having ideas that are just as bad
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Why? Haha, that is an amazing line! Obviously wealth is all important, the sins that created that wealth need to be forgotten and forgiven. In short, get over it, this land is
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Why? Because you can hand your kid the deed to your house, you can't hand them culpability for the 13 small children you murdered. you can't transfer that sort of thing? care to tell me how that would work? besides you could just not take the house
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
absolem posted:How the hell am I supposed to give it back to someone I don't even know existed? 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
absolem posted:How the hell am I supposed to give it back to someone I don't even know existed? Luckily the English have a monarchy so you can give it directly to Queen Elizabeth.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
absolem posted:I just read "Surely you must be joking" again. Feynman is one of my favorite people. It seems that my theory lines up fine with "dah real wurld" It's good to hear. Hopefully, though, you will humour me for a little bit, then. I would argue there are two important pillars that any good moral theory must rest on: The Personal and The Practical. If you disagree, feel free to let me know, and to propose counter points as to what makes a moral theory worthwhile, but I think these points are fairly uncontentious. For the first part, The Personal, it's a question about purpose. It's important to understand that morality is prescriptive, not descriptive - it's a theory of engineering rather than one of natural science. And as such, it comes down to the ultimate engineers dilemma - "Am the thing I making actually the thing I want?" So look at what you've written, and do your best to imagine a world where those principles were widely adopted. Find sources where those ideals have been at least partially implement. Think of edge cases and complexities that might arise, and then decide "Is this the world I would most want to live in?" Expect to have at least your top choices here dealt a fatal blow by the next bit. The second part, The Practical, is all about dealing with the fact that real people are not going to adopt your philosophy wholesale. They will have different values, and different priorities, and you still need to live with them. They are imperfect, and act in the heat of the moment. They have human needs. The real world is seldom as simple as the idealized ones, and a philosophy that cannot thrive, or which is prone to corruption (like communism brought about by a large-scale workers revolt) is one that is inherently flawed, and lacks this pillar. Imagine your ideal world, and then imagine what it was like if 10% of the population planned on doing everything they could to abuse, pervert, and bypass your ideology for their own benefit. Would your world survive? Is your moral philosophy robust? Can you convince people to adopt it? The Practical ultimately leads to compromise. Compromise with the real world and with other people. You sacrifice a bit of your ideals in the hopes that you can create a cohesive morality that people will actually be willing to uphold. The morality of pacifism makes compromises for self-defense. The morality of non-aggression makes compromises by allowing aggression, but only in response... or it goes a step further, and allows it as prevention. But compromises can lead to abuses of their own. Many a good theory of morality falls apart in the details. And without both of these pillars, any theory of morality is worthless. It's a model that does not, and can not, reflect the real world. It's important to note, however, that the second concern is always changing - practicality is at least partially a byproduct of culture, and culture changes. To me, your philosophy fails on both counts - The world it would lead to is not a world I would especially want to live in, especially when you consider the practical ramifications that many people in that world wouldn't give a poo poo about said morality. And the practical bit... well, let's just say there are a lot of flaws relating to implementing such a philosophy in reality in still ending up with a world that isn't utter crap. The sort of compromises Libertarian philosophy leads to are often the kind that completely destroy any appeal the ideal world may have had, while also leading to steady corruption over time of any ideals the philosophy ever had.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
absolem posted:How the hell am I supposed to give it back to someone I don't even know existed? What, your thread isn't working out the way you hoped so you are blaming us? What the hell, take some personal responsibility. And you don't give the land back, jackass, you re-evaluate your ideas because they don't work in the real world.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
absolem posted:Also, do I need to change the OP so you fools have to post ideas of your own instead of just bashing me? Its not that I don't enjoy the debate, its just annoying to have you people act like my ideas are poo poo while 1)not doing a very good job and 2)probably having ideas that are just as bad Haha absolem posted:HAVE AT IT absolem posted:
But anyway, I want to know this: VitalSigns posted:Why shouldn't the federal and state governments pay reparations for the depredations of slavery (which they established in law and perpetuated by naked force), or Separate But Equal, or Jim Crow, or any of that? The US and State Governments are continuous entities, so we can still hold them financially liable for past crimes even if the officials who implemented them are dead. You wouldn't say that the Ford Corporation could get out if its legal liabilities simply by changing management or waiting until everyone in charge at the time dies, would you?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:54
|
|
Why are you having at it?
|
absolem posted:How the hell am I supposed to give it back to someone I don't even know existed? You're a young, white anarcho-capitalist that thinks 300+ million people currently occupying land they believe to legally own should be uprooted and forced out to satiate your dumb idea of fairness over poo poo that happened hundreds of years ago. Are you aware of the humanitarian crisis that would come from giving the land occupied by 300 million people back to less than 5% of that? What about tribes that stole land from other tribes? Who gets the Dakotas? The Sioux invaders or original tribes that lived there?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Pohl posted:What, your thread isn't working out the way you hoped so you are blaming us? What the hell, take some personal responsibility.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:57
|
|