Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is it to be civilized?

Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 10:57:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can't have criminals without a jail. We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves. If a man was so poor that he had no horse, tipi or blanket, someone gave him these things. We were too uncivilized to set much value on personal belongings. We wanted to have things only in order to give them away. We had no money, and therefore a man's worth couldn't be measured by it. We valued the exchange of love, so we did not deal in fear. We had no written law, no attorney or politicians, therefore we couldn't cheat. We were in a really bad way before the white man came, and I don't know how we managed to get along for millenniums without the basic things which, we are told, are absolutely necessary to make a current civilized society."

-- Lakota Sage Lame Deer (from John Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions)
no comment
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 11:03:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
TLDR - capitalism is responsible for the slaughter of innocent indians and the theft of their lands. This is why we cannot have self ownership or property rights.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 11:16:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 11:03:57 AM, Sieben wrote:
TLDR - capitalism is responsible for the slaughter of innocent indians and the theft of their lands. This is why we cannot have self ownership or property rights.

Why Sieben - I'm proud of you!

Our property rights are based on theft. Should not we make some attempt at consistency in our beliefs? Our only consistency stems from the fact that the natives had no laws for theft, therefore it was not illegal -> not immoral. Does this argument make you feel good about everything you promote ideologically?
no comment
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 11:21:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 11:16:08 AM, Caramel wrote:

Our property rights are based on theft.
You mean like, current property rights or property rights in general?

Should not we make some attempt at consistency in our beliefs? Our only consistency stems from the fact that the natives had no laws for theft, therefore it was not illegal -> not immoral.
That is 2 non sequiturs in a row.

Does this argument make you feel good about everything you promote ideologically?
Not attacking innocent people or they stuff they use? Sure.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 11:42:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 11:21:44 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/20/2011 11:16:08 AM, Caramel wrote:

Our property rights are based on theft.
You mean like, current property rights or property rights in general?

I know what you are getting at with this statement.

It must seem pretty inconvenient that natives occupied this land before us. What if they weren't here? There would be no aggregious acts to speak of. Better yet, what if these barbarians had developed capitalism before we got here, making the transition smooth?

This one particular event in history, the genocide of the AmerIndian, is not necessary for me to make my arguments - although it certainly does help. If there were no one here then it still wouldn't make logical sense that one can claim a parcel just because they stepped on it first; that they can tear down the natural habitat all around them for useless production (most of the 'production' we do is absolutely useless). I assert that, provided the community is making the best efforts to preserve natural functionality of the environment (we can discuss what this entails exactly if you wish), then people should be allowed to secure a parcel as territory. This territory is only legitimate in relation to other people and does not give one the ability to do whatever they want with it. They can improve it only if it does not affect natural functionality.

To specifically answer your question, property rights in general are all based off the land. There are tiny examples that are arguable, but not worth noting.

Should not we make some attempt at consistency in our beliefs? Our only consistency stems from the fact that the natives had no laws for theft, therefore it was not illegal -> not immoral.
That is 2 non sequiturs in a row.

What can I say... I'm on a role. It's time to go solo.

Does this argument make you feel good about everything you promote ideologically?
Not attacking innocent people or they stuff they use? Sure.

No one is innocent. We are consumers. Let's accept the damage we are doing and work to minimize it. People can live with a negative ecological footprint if they try (a positive footprint represents the total damage we incur) - there's no need to make the dichotomy of living v. damaging. There is, however, the need to establish this dichotomy under the current setup.
no comment
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:01:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 11:42:46 AM, Caramel wrote:

If there were no one here then it still wouldn't make logical sense that one can claim a parcel just because they stepped on it first;
Wait wait. So you're saying that neither the indians nor the anglos have a right to unused land?

that they can tear down the natural habitat all around them for useless production (most of the 'production' we do is absolutely useless). I assert that, provided the community is making the best efforts to preserve natural functionality of the environment (we can discuss what this entails exactly if you wish), then people should be allowed to secure a parcel as territory. This territory is only legitimate in relation to other people and does not give one the ability to do whatever they want with it. They can improve it only if it does not affect natural functionality.

So wait, you value trees in and of them selves?

To specifically answer your question, property rights in general are all based off the land. There are tiny examples that are arguable, but not worth noting.

No they're not. I own my gameboy and it is not a piece of land.

No one is innocent.
...

We are consumers. Let's accept the damage we are doing and work to minimize it.
People can live with a negative ecological footprint if they try (a positive footprint represents the total damage we incur) - there's no need to make the dichotomy of living v. damaging. There is, however, the need to establish this dichotomy under the current setup.

Crimes against trees aren't crimes.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:16:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 11:42:46 AM, Caramel wrote:
Better yet, what if these barbarians had developed capitalism before we got here, making the transition smooth?

This is the part where I say "capitalism is just a system of negative rights" and you ignore me.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:37:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You know, i'm sure that the life of a red man who lived in North America many suns ago was exciting, mystical, and rather rad despite its hardships.. But even they knew when it was time to scalp a n!gga.

Joking aside, I'd say that what you consider to be civilized depends on the definition you use... Generally, I'd say that it would be the opposite of a brute.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:38:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I always thought the societies that could fight the negative forces of Nature the best would survive longest. Does that make them civilized? Or just survival of the fittest?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:41:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
They were poor.

And he's not apparently telling the whole story:
http://www.jstor.org...

Jail isn't the only way law is enforced.

All these laws to deal with all these miscreants, without "owners of capital" to help it along.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:53:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:16:22 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/20/2011 11:42:46 AM, Caramel wrote:
Better yet, what if these barbarians had developed capitalism before we got here, making the transition smooth?

This is the part where I say "capitalism is just a system of negative rights" and you ignore me.

It sounds pretty, but what is the relevance?
no comment
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 12:53:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The crimes committed against the Native Americans were fundamentally un-libertarian. I don't understand why you try to use brutal wars of conquest as an argument against an ideology based on nonaggression.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:02:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 10:57:52 AM, Caramel wrote:
"Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can't have criminals without a jail.We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves.

-- Lakota Sage Lame Deer (from John Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions)

I seriously doubt this part.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 1:06:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
also, if they have no property, they can't claim their land was stolen, even if they can still protest some of the other stuff.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:45:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:41:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They were poor.

They lacked technology.

And he's not apparently telling the whole story:
http://www.jstor.org...

Jail isn't the only way law is enforced.

But it is the worst way, because it civilizes the punishment. 'Criminals' are taken away behind closed doors and we forget about them. Punishment that is not tucked away is not lost control of; is not hidden from public discrimination and deliberation.

All these laws to deal with all these miscreants, without "owners of capital" to help it along.

Miscreants may be dealt with easier, but more miscreants are inherently created as well. That's largely the point of the OP.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:48:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:37:50 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
You know, i'm sure that the life of a red man who lived in North America many suns ago was exciting, mystical, and rather rad despite its hardships.. But even they knew when it was time to scalp a n!gga.

And we will have to as well.

Joking aside, I'd say that what you consider to be civilized depends on the definition you use... Generally, I'd say that it would be the opposite of a brute.

What is a brute :)
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:49:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:38:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I always thought the societies that could fight the negative forces of Nature the best would survive longest. Does that make them civilized? Or just survival of the fittest?

Sounds kind of restrictive; technology achieves that easily for us nowadays but we can still be 'brutish.' I'm not sure about the relevance of 'survival of the fittest.'
no comment
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:51:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Our property rights are based on theft. Should not we make some attempt at consistency in our beliefs? Our only consistency stems from the fact that the natives had no laws for theft, therefore it was not illegal -> not immoral. Does this argument make you feel good about everything you promote ideologically?:

There was virtually nothing accurate about anything that was quoted. There were crimes that were dealt within the tribes, and rival tribes fought, killed, and enslaved one another regularly.

Secondly, tribes had property rights and they had territorial disputes. Horse thievery was punishable by death, and tribes fought for control of areas.

You're seriously going to deny any of that?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:53:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 12:53:10 PM, Grape wrote:
The crimes committed against the Native Americans were fundamentally un-libertarian. I don't understand why you try to use brutal wars of conquest as an argument against an ideology based on nonaggression.

So it's unlibertarian to force them off the land and make way for people to use money? How would a libertarian operate without currency? I suppose you could try and offer them magical technological gifts to trick them off their land but that wouldn't work on all tribes...
no comment
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:55:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When you're civilized you have a significant infrastructure and system of trade.

Civilized society = Commercial society.

By commercial I don't necessarily mean a society with a flowing market, merchants, corporations and such but a society with a means of moving commerce to the citizenry.

This is based on Smithian Anthropology, Adams Smith stages of society.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:56:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:02:07 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 2/20/2011 10:57:52 AM, Caramel wrote:
"Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can't have criminals without a jail.We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves.

-- Lakota Sage Lame Deer (from John Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions)

I seriously doubt this part.

No jails. Check.
No criminals... well we need laws for that. Check.
No locks or keys... check.
No thieves... Well I'm sure someone stole something from someone at some point, but the essence of his statement is clear - communistic arrangements align interests in a way that provide little incentive for theft.
no comment
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:59:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It must seem pretty inconvenient that natives occupied this land before us.:

Who is "us?"

What if they weren't here? There would be no aggregious acts to speak of. Better yet, what if these barbarians had developed capitalism before we got here, making the transition smooth?:

Caramel, do you HONESTLY believe that Europeans invented capitalism? LOL! Capitalism has been around since time immemorial.

Secondly, whatever was done to Native Americans by Europeans had long existed prior to white man hitting the shored of the East Coast. I'm not saying it makes any of it is right, but pretty please, with sugar on top, don't turn this in to a revisionist history lesson where truth and fact is intentionally obscured to make political and ideological points.

To specifically answer your question, property rights in general are all based off the land. There are tiny examples that are arguable, but not worth noting.:

Why is it only based around land? I don't own any land but I still have possessions.

No one is innocent. We are consumers. Let's accept the damage we are doing and work to minimize it.:

What damage are you referring to?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:00:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:06:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
also, if they have no property, they can't claim their land was stolen, even if they can still protest some of the other stuff.

We're not discussing reparations, I am pointing out the illogic in a public or private entity telling me that vast swaths of land are "theirs" and that I have no business being anywhere near it.

"...can still protest some of the other stuff."

It's called genocide.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:01:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 1:28:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Perhaps a civilized nation protects the weak so it may be survival of the fittest society?

Certainly not our prime objective...
no comment
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:03:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:45:14 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/20/2011 12:41:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They were poor.

They lacked technology.
Of course they lacked technology. They lacked a means to incentivize development thereof.


And he's not apparently telling the whole story:
http://www.jstor.org...

Jail isn't the only way law is enforced.

But it is the worst way, because it civilizes the punishment.
That's assuming the conclusion

Miscreants may be dealt with easier, but more miscreants are inherently created as well. That's largely the point of the OP.
And a bare assertion.

It's called genocide.
Some of it. There was a lot of other stuff too.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:07:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 8:01:12 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/20/2011 1:28:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Perhaps a civilized nation protects the weak so it may be survival of the fittest society?

Certainly not our prime objective...

Certainly not the Indian society's objective you mean. Fact was, they had an uncivilized tribal system, which basically meant they cared very little with how the other tribes were doing. Many times they warred with other tribes for silly reasons. Tecumseh was an aberration in Indian society, but even that was not enough to save the Indian society from it's own apathy about other tribes. Uncivilized.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:15:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:51:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Our property rights are based on theft. Should not we make some attempt at consistency in our beliefs? Our only consistency stems from the fact that the natives had no laws for theft, therefore it was not illegal -> not immoral. Does this argument make you feel good about everything you promote ideologically?:

There was virtually nothing accurate about anything that was quoted. There were crimes that were dealt within the tribes, and rival tribes fought, killed, and enslaved one another regularly.

We were enslaving blacks under capitalism less than two centuries ago. Now we have 'civilized' menial labor instead of slavery. If you factor in our social progress using their general freedom from authority, we have a great place to live.

Secondly, tribes had property rights and they had territorial disputes. Horse thievery was punishable by death, and tribes fought for control of areas.

Interesting that you use a commodity (horses) that wasn't present until we brought it there - along with our influence. Their idea of property was much different than ours. They knew the difference, for instance, between what man can control and what man cannot control.

You're seriously going to deny any of that?

Of course the quote paints a rosy picture and doesn't discuss things like scalping and cannibalism but we have come a long way in the last half-millenium in terms of civil rights, ethics, and technology. These factors would make the difference today.
no comment
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:30:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We were enslaving blacks under capitalism less than two centuries ago.:

The economic system means nothing. In Russian gulags prisoners were forced to create for the State. Did their economic policy of communism bear ANY reflection on slavery? No, it didn't.

Secondly, African slaves were enslaved by their own people and sold to the Europeans. The slave trade has been around for thousands and thousands of years. As much as it would delight you to pin the tail on the donkey, that all of the world's problems are because of white capitalists, history and fact are against you.

Now we have 'civilized' menial labor instead of slavery. If you factor in our social progress using their general freedom from authority, we have a great place to live.:

You have a choice, Caramel. In the USSR, in Cuba, in North Korea, you don't have a choice. You either give your wages to the State or are imprisoned or killed. It's that simple.

My God, you are so obsessed with capitalism that you erroneously smuggle it in to EVERY conversation.

Interesting that you use a commodity (horses) that wasn't present until we brought it there - along with our influence.:

Ah, right, because a rival tribe could have just strolled up and taken pottery and everything would be copacetic, right??? Haha, you're an idiot.

Their idea of property was much different than ours. They knew the difference, for instance, between what man can control and what man cannot control.:

Yeah, they're such honorable people by nature. Their lives were perfect before the evil white man!!! *evil music plays in the background*

Of course the quote paints a rosy picture and doesn't discuss things like scalping and cannibalism but we have come a long way in the last half-millenium in terms of civil rights, ethics, and technology. These factors would make the difference today.:

Make all the difference in what?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:31:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:53:00 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/20/2011 12:53:10 PM, Grape wrote:
The crimes committed against the Native Americans were fundamentally un-libertarian. I don't understand why you try to use brutal wars of conquest as an argument against an ideology based on nonaggression.

So it's unlibertarian to force them off the land and make way for people to use money? How would a libertarian operate without currency? I suppose you could try and offer them magical technological gifts to trick them off their land but that wouldn't work on all tribes...

First of all, you don't need to use money to be a libertarian, you just need to respect negative rights. We've been over this.

Now this is the part where I say "currency is just a medium of exchange" and you ignore me again.

In a free market, we'd probably use gold, silver, and copper, however, there are many things that could work. In prison (and much of WWII Europe) cigarettes pass for currency. A good money commodity has certain attributes like high per unit value, durability, fungibility, etc.

Native Americans used wampum, clam shells, gold dust, tobacco, wheat, indigo...all sorts of fun stuff. European traders would bring with them colored beads for trading with the natives. http://projects.exeter.ac.uk...