 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
blackice,
quote:
If my grandfather robbed your grandfather of his land would you still take the possition that I am entitled to the land not you? |
As long as you were not complicit in the robbery, and as long as my grandfather is not currently alive to reclaim his land, I see no reason why I have a better claim on it than you. The "sins of the fathers" should not pass down the generation, in my opinion.
Ramo,
quote:
Well, the general elements of capitalism were there (i.e. those societies were what most capitalists would consider capitalist). Under a libertarian capitalist definition, capitalism may not have existed there (and in fact, never existed except in socialist societies), but that's why I put the word in quotes. |
Well, OK. And in the Soviet Union, and elsewhere, there were general elements of socialism and communism, and these nations were generally considered to be communist. Doesn't mean they really were under the true definition of the word, though. Same thing here.
quote:
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the libertarian concept of absolute property rights is faulty, and the moral situation is much more ambiguous than y'all make it out to be. |
No, I certainly admit that most land that people own now - well, really almost all land - has been stolen from someone else somewhere along the line. In fact, it's probably been stolen multiple times from various different people. And if someone who is currently living has had their land stolen from them, then of course they should get it back. But if we're 6 generations down the line, it's certainly not a given that the descendant of the guy the land was stolen on has any better claim on the land than the guy who currently owns it, because quite simply, neither of them had anything to do with the theft, and were not even alive at the time.
quote:
The only proposition I'm making is that in certain circumstances (namely in those where such action would reduce coercion), it is perfectly just for workers to seize the means of production through force. |
I'm curious as to why you think the wage-labor system (to which you seem to be referring) involves coercion at all. It's based on a totally voluntary system of contracts, which people enter into because they realize it is in their best interest to do so (the self sufficient farm with no modern amenities example I brought up earlier).
Further, I actually see no problem with a group of workers seizing, say, a factory, IF AND ONLY IF they are returning it to the original owner. But if they're just using the justification that the wage labor system is coercive and is stealing their labor, that is no justification at all, because they voluntarily agreed to the contract and can voluntarily withdraw from it whenever they want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Or is it the rich have acted immorally and resoted to theft? |
Sure, rich people act immorally and steal things too. But again, we were talking about the welfare system, about poor people forcibly taking money that belongs to others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Doesn't mean they really were under the true definition of the word, though. Same thing here. |
I would say that the Soviet Union was socialist and communist. That's what they called themselves, so new definitions of these terms were added. This is how the world works; one can't argue that a definition doesn't exist when millions of people do.
When I wrote capitalism, I was using a different definition from what libertarian capitalists usually use.
quote:
And if someone who is currently living has had their land stolen from them, then of course they should get it back. But if we're 6 generations down the line, it's certainly not a given that the descendant of the guy the land was stolen on has any better claim on the land than the guy who currently owns it, because quite simply, neither of them had anything to do with the theft, and were not even alive at the time. |
I'm wondering what the justification of this is, in terms of libertarian philosophy.
Was it immoral when the Habsburgs or the Bourbons, etc. had "their" land taken away from them? After all, they owned it for centuries.
quote:
I'm curious as to why you think the wage-labor system (to which you seem to be referring) involves coercion at all. It's based on a totally voluntary system of contracts, which people enter into because they realize it is in their best interest to do so (the self sufficient farm with no modern amenities example I brought up earlier). |
That's only true if you assume a priori that their employers have moral rights to the property they control. You can use similar logic in statist (for instance, social democratic) societies and say that because the state (rather than corporations) "owns" all property in these countries, they have the justification to extract whatever rents, etc. they want from the people living there, so they are totally voluntary societies.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
I'm all for people taking personal responsibility.
I'm all for self-sufficiency.
In these regards, David Floyd and I have numerous things in common.
Where we differ is this:
Sometimes, stuff just simply needs to get fixed. Doesn't matter how, doesn't matter by whom, it just simply needs fixing.
The David Floyd's of the world would be very quick to get out of the way in those cases, muttering a quick "well, it's not MY fault such-and-so happened."
Good for you. It wasn't your fault.
But the problem remains nonetheless, and still needs fixing.
And yes, should the day ever come that you find yourself in need, it'll be people like me who will ride to your rescue and lend a helping hand, because if I see an injustice....if I see some sort of problem that needs fixing, my first, gut reaction is to fix it.
We are, at our biological core, social creatures. Hunting apes. We can dress it up any way we like, but that is the final, bedrock truth of it.
And as social creatures, we are responsible for each other.
All of us.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
Ramo,
quote:
Was it immoral when the Habsburgs or the Bourbons, etc. had "their" land taken away from them? After all, they owned it for centuries. |
Well, first of all, the Habsburgs and Bourbons were a bunch of absolutist monarchs, who murdered thousands of people either directly or through their numerous wars. Overthrowing those kinds of people is never a problem. If you either kill these people or throw them in prison for life, then no, I see little problem in appropriating their land, because they can no longer use it.
But, if they had done nothing particularly wrong, and a bunch of peasants woke up one day and decided they wanted some land, THAT would have been immoral.
quote:
That's only true if you assume a priori that their employers have moral rights to the property they control. You can use similar logic in statist (for instance, social democratic) societies and say that because the state (rather than corporations) "owns" all property in these countries, they have the justification to extract whatever rents, etc. they want from the people living there, so they are totally voluntary societies. |
Yes, a State can own property. Yes, a State can even own all the land property in the nation. But this is only possible if the nation either claimed unclaimed land, or purchased claimed land.
This has little to do with factory owners, who most likely purchased the land the factory is on and built the factory with either their money or that of investors, and then hired workers on a voluntary basis.
GePap,
quote:
One thing both communists and Libertarians share is a view of people as economic animals, simply interested in their standard of living and that of their children. |
Untrue, in the case of Libertarianism. The right to property is only one aspect of natural rights. The rights to life and liberty are as important.
che,
quote:
So if I take all your stuff and I kill you, I get to keep it? |
Of course not, you go to prison for life or get executed.
GV,
quote:
But David doesn't support taxes... So I guess his answer is that you would be a immoral person for doing that |
Don't be ridiculous. There are methods other than taxes for paying for police, such as contributions and user fees. I also rather like the idea of unpaid or low paid voluntary police, who supplement the small regular police force when needed.
Vel,
Your post seems to revolve around the notion that when people have problems, those problems should be solved.
I totally agree.
I am not against charity, church, or family, by any means. These are the primary methods of solving problems. What I oppose are laws FORCING me to give up money to try to solve the problem. No one has a right to a comfortable life - sorry, but it just isn't there. I certainly have a right to my own property, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
DF: The crux of where I'm going with my statement is this. When problems arise, they need resolution. They don't need to be debated, or politicked, or sub-committeed at the next regional meeting, they need fixing. It's as simple as that.
Using your own statements in various places on this thread, I get the distinct impression that you would spend so much time and energy worrying about, and fretting over who's fault it was that there's a problem to begin with, that by the time you actually got around to doing anything about it (assuming, of course, after a careful evalutation of the facts that you had any obligation to act in any case, and after you came to some reckoning about "who's fault" it was), it would be too late to make one whit of difference.
The reason laws exist to tell society what to do in certain situations (feed the poor, heal the sick, etc) is not because we are not capable of coming to those decisions on our own, but rather to prevent debate on the issue. Debate = time, and time costs lives in emergency or problem situations.
A secondary reason such laws exist is that until recently (speaking from an evolutionary standpoint), the human ape has never EVER lived in such a vast society. It's an entirely new phenomenon, requiring entirely new ways of doing things, and in many ways, we're still stumbling around in the dark.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adalbertus
|
 |
Cologne, Germany
Feb 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Don't be ridiculous. There are methods other than taxes for paying for police, such as contributions and user fees. I also rather like the idea of unpaid or low paid voluntary police, who supplement the small regular police force when needed. |
Police is exactly one reason why I prefer to pay taxes for it. In Germany, there are (unfortunately, you'll soon see, why) private security companies. It may be a personal style of mine, but usually body language says much more about personalities than their status. I don't feel safe with those guys from private companies. I feel safe with policemen. This is simply because the tax-payed police has much higher requirements to the personality than private security companies, who I suspect they take anyone. And it is usually those who want to exert power that volunteer for a police duty. For me, these are the worse policemen, and often I prefer a simple drunkard next to me in the train over them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Well, first of all, the Habsburgs and Bourbons were a bunch of absolutist monarchs, |
The corporation is about as absolutist organization I can think of.  Besides, it's their property, right? Don't they have the moral justification to do whatever they want with it?
quote:
who murdered thousands of people either directly or through their numerous wars. |
Like United Fruit?
quote:
If you either kill these people or throw them in prison for life, then no, I see little problem in appropriating their land, because they can no longer use it. |
What about their heirs? Didn't they have moral rights to the land? Wouldn't taking it be unjust?
quote:
But, if they had done nothing particularly wrong, and a bunch of peasants woke up one day and decided they wanted some land, THAT would have been immoral. |
I know I shouldn't be suprised by this response, but.... You have some "interesting" political ideas, David.
quote:
But this is only possible if the nation either claimed unclaimed land, or purchased claimed land. |
What's "claimed" land? And what if the state took land through force, but it happened generations ago, and no one directly affected is still alive? Shouldn't that be ok?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
Vel,
quote:
DF: The crux of where I'm going with my statement is this. When problems arise, they need resolution. They don't need to be debated, or politicked, or sub-committeed at the next regional meeting, they need fixing. It's as simple as that. |
The corollary to this premise, of course, is that the ends justify the means. Fix the problem, don't worry too much about how you fix it or who you hurt in the process. I can't accept that.
quote:
Using your own statements in various places on this thread, I get the distinct impression that you would spend so much time and energy worrying about, and fretting over who's fault it was that there's a problem to begin with, that by the time you actually got around to doing anything about it (assuming, of course, after a careful evalutation of the facts that you had any obligation to act in any case, and after you came to some reckoning about "who's fault" it was), it would be too late to make one whit of difference. |
I would spend no time debating. If someone is starving, for example, they should go to charity, church or family. They shouldn't use force to take my money.
quote:
The reason laws exist to tell society what to do in certain situations (feed the poor, heal the sick, etc) is not because we are not capable of coming to those decisions on our own, but rather to prevent debate on the issue. |
And that's the whole problem, the issue of pre-existing coercion.
GV,
quote:
So kind of like a protection racket? If a business doesn't pay it's "user fees" it can expect to get robbed? |
I seriously doubt it - I expect business owners to (heavily) arm themselves, same as the rest of the population. If someone breaks in, the store clerk pulls out an AR-15 and makes them look like Swiss cheese.
Ramo,
Challenging me as always - at least YOU'RE making me think this stuff through, anyway 
quote:
The corporation is about as absolutist organization I can think of. |
How so? Corporations are responsible to the board of trustees, and ultimately the stockholders. That's not very absolutist.
Find a quote where I said corporations should be able to go around killing people, and I'll drop this right now. But of course I never said that, and people within a corporation should be held responsible for murder the same as anyone else. I don't believe in exemptions in justice for the rich and powerful either, you know
quote:
What about their heirs? Didn't they have moral rights to the land? Wouldn't taking it be unjust? |
It depends. Are their heirs involved with the crimes of the rulers? Are they using their power to rob and kill and rape? That would certainly be relevant, I think.
In any case, I don't know enough about the seizure of the lands of the Bourbons and Habsburgs to adequately comment, but if you provide a link or a book suggestion I'll be more than happy to read up on it 
quote:
What's "claimed" land? And what if the state took land through force, but it happened generations ago, and no one directly affected is still alive? Shouldn't that be ok? |
A state doesn't have rights in the same way you or I do. A state has the responsibility to protect the life, liberty, and property of those people living within the state, and that's it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
DF, the core of my disagreement with your position is now, what it was at the start.
You say that we should rely on charitible organizations and churches to fix the problems. I maintain that this is impractical, if not patentily impossible, because such orgnizations are, by their nature, localized. Non-scalable.
Your solution would work well if we lived in an America composed of small, scattered, and largely self-sufficient argiculturally based communities, and in fact, the wide spread social problems we're seeing today were all but nonexistant in America as it was pre-industrial revolution.
The problem is that the sprawling urban centers we have today (as a direct result of our industrialization) do not fit the old agrarian society models we used before with such effectiveness. As such, other means are necessary.
Now you, as a person who is staunchly against laws mandating help for the poor and sick who cannot afford to pay their own way, may be the very person to devise a provable, workable, scalar system to handle such things. Until such time, however, it would be folly of the worst kind to simply throw the baby out with the bath water, and nix all the laws we have in place, or may put in place in the future simply because you "think" there might be a better way.
Modern society is about results. The laws work. Inefficiently....ineffectively, non-optimally, but they do some good.
Find another way, and prove it works, and I think you'll find ready and quick adoptation.
Until then tho, the laws are necessary to maintain a binding social contract, given the nature of modern society and its vast scale.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Now you, as a person who is staunchly against laws mandating help for the poor and sick who cannot afford to pay their own way, may be the very person to devise a provable, workable, scalar system to handle such things. Until such time, however, it would be folly of the worst kind to simply throw the baby out with the bath water, and nix all the laws we have in place, or may put in place in the future simply because you "think" there might be a better way. |
Again, you're problem here is seeming to think that a new way needs to be devised at all. That's the whole problem. Welfare, Social Security, etc., - those ARE the new way, and they rely on coercion and forced charity.
I say, go back to the non-coercive way things used to be. Churches aren't gonna turn people away if they need help, and neither is the Red Cross or someone's family.
Ultimately, though, if all these methods fail, and if someone is still unable or unwilling to get a job, I still shouldn't be coerced into helping them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
DF: Without unbuliding the cities and dismantling the industrialized apparatus, there IS no going back. Our industrialization changed our social structure in dramatic and insane ways. It created a human society on a scale that nobody ever DREAMED of.
Agrarian fixes DO NOT WORK!
The reason they do not work is this:
Churches are communal in their nature. They have paritioners, members, or whatever term you wish to ascribe to them. Those members pay a tithe, and some (not all, but some....perhaps even many) churches have outreach programs to help the needy. The caveat being that they help the needy in their local...communal...area
Industrialization has created massive population centers. Overcrowded, sprawling cities. People have NEVER, until most modern times, lived in such numbers, so closely packed together. There was never a need. Agrarian based societies aren't on such a vast scale that this has ever been necessary.
It is now.
So....if you want to reap the benefits of our industrialized society (which include, among other things, our ability to even hold this conversation to begin with), then you've got to pay the full price for that.
The full price for that includes a government mandated social contract....at least until some other, viable alternative can be found.
We are the united states of America, not a collection of farming communities.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
I have never said that churches and churches alone can solve problems. The number one solution should be one's family. No one's family is gonna let a down on his luck son starve, you know? Outside of that, there is the Red Cross and other charity organizations, and outside of that are churches.
But again, in any case it wouldn't matter if there were NO options open. I STILL wouldn't support a legalized system of theft and coercion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
If you have a job right now, you pay taxes. You are, therefore (whether you acknowledge or like it or no) supporting the existing system. |
Yes, you're correct - my money is being stolen at gunpoint.
quote:
In an agrarian-based society, problems are seldom so large and sweeping that the family unit, or the community at large, cannot handle them.
This is clearly no longer the case. |
For a large percentage of the people having trouble, this isn't correct. What you are doing is looking at poverty and all that as one big problem, rather than thousands of individual problems. Most individuals have a family of some sort that can help them at least to some extent. Many of these individuals have access to church food banks. Many of these individuals have access to the local YMCA/YWCA. And many of these individuals are also just lazy bums who either squander what little money they have (hell, I saw one bum smoking the other day with a sign in his other hand saying "Please Help" - needless to say, I did not, seeing as how his money would probably just go to his smoking habit), or just don't want to work because they can make as much or more money off of welfare programs.
Yes, I grant you that there are a few people in this country who are unable to take advantage of any of the above solutions. What these people then have to rely on is the charity of individuals who are better off than themselves. If these people genuinely need help, and show themselves not to squander their money (I don't want to see them buying cigarettes or anywhere NEAR a liquor store), then people will be likely to help them out a bit, give them $5, if they are not already being taxed out the ass for social services.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
Wow. Yet another one of those threads that covers the same ground as a million like it before.
There is no way I am going to read through this fully, but there are a couple quick comments.
--"Your money is not being stolen at gunpoint, but that's an intriguing image."
Well, if you try not to pay taxes, see what gets shoved in your face. In the US, the most significant taxes (federal income and entitlement) are taken away before you even get your hands on it.
This is, IMNSHO, one of the main problems really. You never get to see the money itself, so most people don't understand what they're paying out. The numbers on the tax returns are too abstract for most. What should happen is we have to sit down once (or twice, or four times, whatever) a year and write out a check for the whole shebang.
Do this and I bet you Libertarian ideas become a whole lot more popular reaaaaally quickly.
Edit:
Note also the mindset the current set up implies. It certainly makes it look like the government believes it has first dibs on everyone's money, and whatever they don't want we're allowed to keep. Don't know about you, but I find that rather distasteful, especially when others in the thread are whinging about corporate slavery, etc.
--"Poverty cannot be tackled one case at a time."
Isn't this exactly what the government does? (Side argument, I'd suggest instead that the government is causing a large portion of the problems, from (dis)education to farm subsidies designed to artificially inflate food prices.)
In any case, how can you claim that private organizations don't scale well? Okay, no organization scales well, but that applies to governments as well. And there are several corporations larger than most governments.
Wraith
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul."
-– George Bernard Shaw
Last edited by Wraith on 13-09-2002 at 19:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Hey...I'm right there in the boat with you! I'm all for finding another way. I'm simply saying that until we do find another proven effective way, let's not ditch the whole system, you know? Rattletrap or no, flaws and all, it works.
Perfectly? 'course not, but what does?
Is there a better alternative? Not presently, but theoretically there should be, yes.
As to scalar, I did not say that private organizations do not scale well....only that churches (the common theme of DF's counterargument) aren't scalar, because churches by their nature are small scale, communal things. They have limited reach and most prefer to keep what funds they generate for outreach programs close to home. This kind of "down home, community takes care of itself and doesn't need the help of outsiders" does not work in an environment with sprawling urban centers. That's why we drifted away from it. If it had worked, we would, no doubt, still be continuing its use. In this way, societal evolution is not dissimilar to natural selection and biological evolution. The idea would not have fallen by the wayside had it continued to be effective in the face of a changing society.
I also at least partially agree with you that the government is at least in part, responsible for a slice of the problem, but in general, I'd say they fix more than they break, for a net gain. Again, not perfect, but better than anything else that's been tried.
The burden of proof tho, clearly lies with those who would change the system. Policies don't change "just because." There needs to be compelling proof behind the argument to prompt the change, and when such is provided, change WILL come. I have no doubt of that.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2002 18:06
So I guess his answer is that you would be a immoral person for doing that
|