|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I love Murray Rothbard. Not only is he a holocaust denier, he believes that WWII was waged to murder Germans and the Japanese. What's your source for this? I don't see it in your post.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:tl;dr, Rothbard was a dick Wow, that was pretty incredible stuff. I knew he was bad but not that bad. Thanks for the info! Who What Now posted:Holy poo poo Walter Block is a loving LOON! Not to mention and enormous racist ("blacks don't have jobs because they are too lazy to earn those minimum wage jobs." What?! Yeah, he's a complete fuckwit, and an arsehole to boot. A while ago I went through his 'defending the undefendable', a book where he explicitly defends discrimination, child labour and all sorts of Bad Things, and made a short compendium of some of the arguments:  A great source for anti-libertarian arguments is blogger Matt Bruenig. He seems to make short work libertarian theories on a daily basis (at least IMHO), in particular the implicit 'just deserts' theory of income distribution and the non-aggression principle. He also shreds the worst libertarians like HHH specifically. The NAP is pretty easy to take down. Quite clearly, property rights involve 'initiating violence' against somebody. Libertarians only get round this by stretching the word 'violence' until it's lost all meaning.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 14:24
|
|
). And it is way different hearing stuff that absolem was saying nearly word for word coming from a real person's mouth than it is reading it on a forum, and not it a good way. I wanted to violate the NAP and reach through time and space and throttle the man.
|
LogisticEarth posted:After reading a few of his articles, his takedown of the NAP is a bit weak and strawmans the libertarian position a bit. The NAP, in my understanding, is generally a system of conflict resolution that can be applied to a variety of property schemes. If you don't also accept the property right scheme then of course it doesn't make sense. Well, yeah - that's his point: the NAP never does any argumentative work at any time. It always rests on an implicit theory of distributive justice. quote:To illustrate the difference, imagine Person A is growing corn on a plot of land. Person B puts up a radio tower next door and starts broadcasting radio signals that pass through A's land and corn. Is B aggressing against A? If you're operating under a spatial-rights system, then yes, as they're sending energy into the area A owns. However, if you're under a use-right scheme, then B's radio waves are in no way affecting A's right to continue growing their corn unmolested. Aggression is based upon affecting the other person's broader actions that they have already set in place, not merely a metaphysical claim to matter occupying a 3 dimensional space. Maybe I'm misreading, but to me this just seems like an argument for socialist-style possession over property: people have a right to own something if they are using it, rather than just by legal fiat - as is the case now. I mean, how can you justify unused stocks of food and massive fortunes while others starve under a use-rights ethic?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:The difference is that the use-rights are homesteadable, transferable, and perpetual until abandonment, as determined under whatever legal structure exists. In the aforementioned crop scenario, you're using a certain plot of land for agricultural/production purposes. You decide to stop growing corn, perhaps because you have enough but plan a new crop for next season, perhaps because you're letting the soil lie fallow, etc. The land isn't free to be developed or planted, because that would interfere with the currently existing right for agricultural development. Of course, the owner could choose to use the land for a different purpose, homesteading new rights, or transfer the use-rights to someone else. I'm not talking about when somebody postpones using the land; I'm talking about when they simply abandon it and have no reason to exclude others from accessing it. This seems unjustified by your earlier definition of use-rights: you said that "B's radio waves are in no way affecting A's right to continue growing their corn unmolested". The same thing applies if A stops using the land to grow corn (indefinitely), and C decides that he'd like to do so instead. C's decision does not affect A at all. quote:Everything else is a moral question of when it is moral (if not legally right) to break the law. Using the stockpile example, is it wrong for someone to keep a stockpile of seed corn for the next season, when people are starving outside? What about a a stock of food that is meant to last the winter, when the neighbors are already starving during the summer? What about a stock of finished goods that you wish to sell to leave a nest egg for your family's future well being, while someone else needs healthcare today? These are moral and ethical questions though, not a theory of property rights. They are moral and ethical questions which have direct bearing on the theory of property rights and when they may or may not be justified. This kind of stuff already contributes to actual political and legal decisions, so I don't see why a legal structure of possession that made ethical and moral questions the criteria for ownership would be any more problematic than the current one.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Well, how do you determine the difference between postponing the use, a very low-impact use (e.g. land conservation), and abandonment? I don't see how this is more difficult than settling any other legal dispute. Courts can decide what is owned by whom and for what purpose they are using it through debate using evidence (eg reasons for seasonal abandonment; future procured contracts; past behaviour) to determine whether land use is just postponed temporarily or if the land is effectively abandoned, along with whether it could be better put to some other purpose (given to someone else). quote:Not whether the rights themselves are justified, but whether violating the rights are justified or understandable. How can you decide what a right is without deciding what violates it? Wikipedia states that "rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." What people are allowed to do or entitled to, and what others are allowed to do or entitled to do to them, is exactly what rights are. So the ethical debate over what 'violates' a right and when this might be justified (what people are not entitled to do) is essentially the same debate as what the right actually is. quote:A system of rights based on whatever was deemed moral/ethical at the time is hugely arbitrary. Static rights, based on fundamental principles, that may happen to be violated from time to time by crimes of necessity seems a lot less open to abuse and confusion. And it also creates a system of restitution after the fact, should it be deemed appropriate. What exactly are "fundamental principles" and how are they different to "whatever was deemed moral/ethical at the time"? Property rights themselves are an example of a historically contingent institution based on certain ethics (individualism, just deserts, capitalism itself). quote:Consider the old lifeboat scenario. Two guys in a boat in the ocean, only enough fresh water for one. Man A kills man B out of desperation to survive. Did A violate B's rights? Absolutely. Was it wrong? That's a whole other question. You can't expect A or B to patiently wait, bhudda-like to die of thirst. But as A violated B's right to life, then whoever is taking up the case of B (heirs, state justice system, whatever) has a claim against A. The act might be forgiven, or it might be punished. What I am arguing for (and saying the use-ethic argues for) is an ex ante 'redistribution' of property rights where the property is not being used, as deemed by a court of law or council of elders or what have you. Your example is a case of an ex post punishment for somebody violating a right before there's been such a debate over whether their actions are justified. The analogous case for property would be where somebody (for consistency, let's say a homeless person with nowhere else to go) camps out on abandoned land that is currently in the ownership of someone else, and the question of whether rights were violated and whether it was 'wrong' are again separate.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:As long as I'm on it though, what about things like hunting and fishing restrictions? What if some rear end in a top hat collects all the fish and game in the county and nobody has anything to eat unless they pay extortionist prices brought about by the monopoly on the fish and game supply? Technology will develop an alternative and profit seeking companies will undercut the monopolist. after everyone has starved
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Caros posted:Those authors didn't actually benefit from that infrastructure however. Its the same argument that walmart benefits substantially more from our existing infrastructure because they use the roads more, they hire more people who were educated in public schools etc. J.K. Rowling benefited more from those systems than did the guy who can't sell more than one or two copies of his book. The libertarian argument against this is that it's a question-beg. Yes, state infrastructure exists and people definitely benefit from it. However, just because it's built by the state doesn't mean it has to be. Authors like Rowling would have an even better chance with super-efficient private roads, schools etcetera.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Am I confused, or does that itself not beg the question? (At least without further argument in favour of the position). The difference being that we at least have empirical proof of a public infrastructure aiding Rowling? Yeah, it's a pretty weak response. But I thought I'd put it out there in the interests of 'knowing one's enemy'. In other news, libertarians are considering setting up little off-shore libertopias: quote:Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.... I'd say stuff, but I really don't think it's necessary. Mike the mad biologist has a post in the matter of what rules and regulations there would inevitably be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:That article is 3 years old, so it's probably the same one you heard about before. Whoops, completely failed to notice the dates - just came across it on twitter. Anyone know if any progress has been made on the islands?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
From what you've said, his only real problem is an obsession with gold. Just point out the role the gold standard played in lengthening the Great Depression (basically, the order countries left the gold standard is the same order they came out of depression), and how volatile gold's market price actually is. Ask what is inherently wrong with paper money other than the fact that it just doesn't 'seem' right. Obviously, if he's a syndicalist he might be against money full stop. But better paper money than metal money.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
DigitalDud posted:I think libertarians deserve credit for being the world's best anti-war advocates, it's probably the most honorable thing they do. Virtually every other school of thought makes excuses when it comes to war and its atrocities, but libertarians are the only ones who are consistent about it. Yes but this comes with a complete failure to contextualise violence and understand why wars actually happen. Often it goes as far as 'war is done by government, like all bad things, so...cut government spending!' There's a real refusal to try and link capitalism to violence, or to accept that 'rejecting' violence in a system built on violence is, well, impossible. I do agree with you partially, though. Libertarians are also good on drugs, immigration and sometimes on police violence/the prison system.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Wile we're distinguishing between libertarians and neo-cons, it's worth pointing out that Rand & Objectivism are not libertarian, either:Ayn Rand posted:All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement... In other words, most libertarians actually do care about freedom, even if they can seem dogmatic/misguided. Rand was just an authoritarian shitbag.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Changing the subject somewhat; how do Libertarians who are absolutely opposed to any form of Government assistance propose to feed/house severely disabled people who are unable to work, and do not have families to care for them? I ask this because the leader of my country's Libertarian party has proposed an utterly ludicrous policy that would require any government department to disclose what the personal income tax brackets would be if their department was not funded. This of course focuses heavily on showing that the 19% income tax band would become 13% if the Ministry for Social Development (welfare) ceased to exist. Charity and family will take care of that, bro. Here's a great, empirical deconstruction of that idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 13:44
|
|