2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby laojim » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:35 am

Objectivist wrote:
WeiWenDi wrote:a libertarian may be racist without any such qualms, because he can pay point to authoritative libertarian figures like Ron Paul opposing civil rights legislation


Please explain how it is an authoritarian position...to believe that citizens who own private property, should be allowed have anyone they want on that property, while at the same time, being able to prevent whoever you want from coming onto that property, regardless of the reason.
...


If you own, for example, a cafe, you cannot without some good reason, and color of the skin is not considered a good reason in American law, deny anyone access to the public accommodation. Your problem, however, is in the notion of an absolute right to property. The merest of surveys of human society will show a vast variation in the notions of private property with none, of which I have ever heard, positing the notion that once a dollar or a pencil comes into your hands that it is forever immune from the demands of the public for access. If we need your house for our freeway we'll take it and if we need your dollar for our government we will take it. There is no absolute right to property. Doesn't exist. Nonsense.

Have a good evening, I'm going beddy bye.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:04 am

Objectivist wrote:Please explain how it is an authoritarian position...


I have no need to explain any such thing, because these two words:

WeiWenDi wrote:authoritative


and

Objectivist wrote:authoritarian


are completely different. It is not my fault that you misread the words I actually write. Get that? Not my fault. Once more, just to let the message sink in: not my fault. I am under no obligation to make anyone here understand when what I say is already perfectly straight-forward, and they would prefer to wallow in ignorance, wilful or otherwise.

Ron Paul is not an authoritarian. But that doesn't mean he isn't wrong on the topic of civil rights legislation.

He is an authoritative libertarian, because very many right-libertarians trust him, if they don't outright make him into the focus of a personality cult and parrot his every word as if it were the word of God. Libertarians pride themselves on being 'freethinking' and 'rational', but in my experience too many of them are all too eager to let other people do their thinking for them - particularly if their names are Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Alisa Rosenbaum.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Objectivist » Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:24 pm

laojim wrote:Your problem, however, is in the notion of an absolute right to property. The merest of surveys of human society will show a vast variation in the notions of private property with none, of which I have ever heard, positing the notion that once a dollar or a pencil comes into your hands that it is forever immune from the demands of the public for access. If we need your house for our freeway we'll take it and if we need your dollar for our government we will take it. There is no absolute right to property. Doesn't exist. Nonsense


You've just made my exact point for me. We do not respect property in America...therefore the notion that we are free is a sham. It's impossible to have freedom without privacy. It's impossible to have privacy without property. If the courts have the authority to take your property or privacy then what is the point in calling America a free country?

WeiWenDi wrote:Libertarians pride themselves on being 'freethinking' and 'rational', but in my experience too many of them are all too eager to let other people do their thinking for them - particularly if their names are Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Alisa Rosenbaum.


How are they any different than liberals/progressives who spout off nonsense that directly comes from the likes of Krugman, Buffett or Keynes? There is no bigger offender on this message board who uses the words of others to make his point for him than yourself. All someone has to do is look through a couple of threads in the current affairs section of this board to see how you operate.

And for the record...I rarely read most of what you say here. I usually either skip over it or skim through it.
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby laojim » Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:23 am

Objectivist wrote:
laojim wrote:Your problem, however, is in the notion of an absolute right to property. The merest of surveys of human society will show a vast variation in the notions of private property with none, of which I have ever heard, positing the notion that once a dollar or a pencil comes into your hands that it is forever immune from the demands of the public for access. If we need your house for our freeway we'll take it and if we need your dollar for our government we will take it. There is no absolute right to property. Doesn't exist. Nonsense


You've just made my exact point for me. We do not respect property in America...therefore the notion that we are free is a sham...

[/quote]

No, it is rational and reasonable for the needs of the majority to take precedence over the desires of the few. You may like to have a reeking smoky chimney but we have a right to breathe and so we may well decide to pull your chimney down and fine you into the bargain. The goods and the benefits of the nation circulate and they do not stop just because you have the absurd idea that your rights are absolute. The shared needs and rights of all of us are more important and will prevail in the end. That, my fine feathered friend, is socialism. It is also objectively rational.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Objectivist » Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:20 pm

laojim wrote:it is rational and reasonable for the needs of the majority to take precedence over the desires of the few


For a lot of people, it's really easy to be part of that majority and to just take something that does not belong to you. When you're a retired farmer who has lived his entire life on the same farm that has been passed down from generation to generation and one day a judge orders your property to be seized and used for the public good, you might not have the same opinions.

Personally, I do not like the idea of owning something and having the government or a judge announce that I'm no longer entitled to my privacy or property. There's no real point in saying you own anything if it can just be seized even in cases where you are not harming anyone else.

laojim wrote:You may like to have a reeking smoky chimney but we have a right to breathe and so we may well decide to pull your chimney down and fine you into the bargain.


That's an entirely different point altogether, because in this example the person is harming another. I don't know why you would use an example like this, because Libertarians believe in the court systems and believe that people should not be allowed to intentionally harm one another.

It is an entirely different thing altogether for someone to just own private property and to have the government or a judge tell you that you have no right to privacy anymore and in some cases may not be entitled to what already belongs to you.

laojim wrote:The goods and the benefits of the nation circulate and they do not stop just because you have the absurd idea that your rights are absolute.


Why is it so absurd that people demand rights or demand that they be absolute? Shouldn't all rights and laws be absolute? If they are not absolute then why do they exist at all?

laojim wrote:The shared needs and rights of all of us are more important and will prevail in the end. That, my fine feathered friend, is socialism.


I agree that shared needs and rights are very important...I just do not think that one person's rights is more important than another person's rights just because 51% of the people agree more with one person over the other. I do not think that any specific percentage of people who support something should matter with regards to privacy and property. Even if 99% of the people stood up tomorrow and said that they wanted to seize all the property of the remaining 1% of the people...I would oppose it.

I just feel that the most humane way we can be as human beings, is to let someone own their own property and do whatever they want with it, just as long as they are not harming another person. If a man cannot be left to himself, in his own private way, then he is nowhere near free. He is a slave.
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby laojim » Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:04 am

Objectivist wrote:
laojim wrote:The goods and the benefits of the nation circulate and they do not stop just because you have the absurd idea that your rights are absolute.


Why is it so absurd that people demand rights or demand that they be absolute? Shouldn't all rights and laws be absolute? If they are not absolute then why do they exist at all?


They exist as a social convenience. Property, like money, is a social fiction, entirely defined by culture. In many cultures the notion of owning land is considered absurd. In some the notion of money has been considered ridiculous. Such things are simply social conventions. If you give me a piece of paper I can tell you if it is money or not, but not without knowing something about where it comes from and what, by social convention, you can do with it. Social convention defines what you can and cannot own and who can or cannot take it away. There is nothing sacred about your house or your family farm that prevents it being taken by the government for some public good, like building a road. It is, at best, fanciful to imagine that your property is "absolutely" yours and yours alone. If we need a sewer and your family's ancient house is in the way, down it comes. Mind you, we'll give you enough money to buy a new house that you can pass on to your children as the sacred old family home instead. In this country that is also considered fair.

This is why I find the very idea of absolute property foolish and will, therefor, disregard anything built on the foundation of such nonsense.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:33 am

Speaking as someone who is neither technically a state socialist (though I do have a fondness for public ownership of certain key industries and resources) nor a libertarian (though I am a non-interventionist), I note with some irony that this:

Objectivist wrote:I just feel that the most humane way we can be as human beings, is to let someone own their own property and do whatever they want with it, just as long as they are not harming another person.


Is not incompatible in the slightest with this:

laojim wrote:You may like to have a reeking smoky chimney but we have a right to breathe and so we may well decide to pull your chimney down and fine you into the bargain.


because both assume the no-harm principle. If Objectivist objects to the latter, it is merely because his definition of 'harm' is obviously different from laojim's - it is not a disagreement in substance, but a disagreement in semantics. Likewise, most socialists love property rights: the 'red' variety merely insist that it (capital forms of property, rather) should belong to the state; whilst the 'black' variety insist that it should belong to democratic collectives. That's far from saying property shouldn't exist.

Objectivist wrote:I just do not think that one person's rights is more important than another person's rights just because 51% of the people agree more with one person over the other.


Now that is where I disagree. Human rights are generally thought to consist of life, liberty and property. I believe that they should be considered in that order and no other. Life is obviously more primary than liberty or property, because it is meaningless to speak of a dead man being free, or owning property.

A starving man is justified in taking bread unasked from a rich man (i.e., it is not theft), because the poor man's right to life outweighs the rich man's right to property. However, all lending at interest - though particularly that to poor people who require payday loans to survive one month to the next - ought to be considered theft not just of property, but of the right to life, since the creditor is making that right conditional upon an ability to pay interest, and no one should have any right to take from people the minimum they need to stay alive.

Also, I think we should have a healthy mix of public, private and common-pool resource property regimes, but I actually agree with Objectivist (shock and horror!) that we should clearly define what is what. The irony is, however, that we either need the state to do this, or we need deep community norms and civic organisations with a high degree of social soft-enforcement power (like the Church, and the power of excommunication).
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby laojim » Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:07 am

WeiWenDi wrote:...Likewise, most socialists love property rights: the 'red' variety merely insist that it (capital forms of property, rather) should belong to the state; whilst the 'black' variety insist that it should belong to democratic collectives. That's far from saying property shouldn't exist....


I would offer a minor quibble that most socialists and communists regard, in the ideal case, the ownership as falling to a collective entity of some sort and generally simply recognize the nation state as the only existing institution which is, in principle, amenable to democratic control, as Chomsky has often pointed out. As he put it, democracies have the flaw that they are potentially influenced by the people while the corporation is a pure tyranny answerable only to some share holders.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Objectivist » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:11 pm

laojim wrote:Property, like money, is a social fiction, entirely defined by culture. In many cultures the notion of owning land is considered absurd...there is nothing sacred about your house or your family farm that prevents it being taken by the government for some public good, like building a road.


I disagree that property is defined by culture. Property is not always defined by monetary value, either. What is valuable property to one person could be completely worthless to another, therefore all property is not equal to all people. Government cannot properly compensate for seized private property with just money. This is an unjust problem that is against respecting people as individuals and directly violates their privacy.

Property cannot be taken if the owner never fulled owned it in the first place, which is precisely the notion you endorse when you speak of the idea that government can take whatever it wants, as long as the public demands it. The endorsed concept that a majority of individuals own everything that I own and are entitled to take it if they want to.

It's too authoritarian for me. Unless our national security was at risk I see no need for such a thing.
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby laojim » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:24 pm

Objectivist wrote:
laojim wrote:Property, like money, is a social fiction, entirely defined by culture. In many cultures the notion of owning land is considered absurd...there is nothing sacred about your house or your family farm that prevents it being taken by the government for some public good, like building a road.


I disagree that property is defined by culture. .....
It's too authoritarian for me. Unless our national security was at risk I see no need for such a thing.


You don't own a house where the rest of the city needs a sewer or a bypass. There are many things that a community might need other than items of national security.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved

 
cron