Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Government: How to Appease Wallstreetatheist

CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 6:40:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Simply claim ownership of your territory. Call your taxes rents. Continue not to restrict emigration (restricting immigration is OK, though; in fact, your current policy is suspiciously liberal). Throwing people into prison is probably OK if you include criminal law in what you'll call the lease, but just to be safe you might want to dump your criminals onto another country, Castro-style.

Worried that Wallstreetatheist won't considerer your claim legitimate? That's the beauty. When pressed, he and the other vulgar libertarians admit that no claims are legitimate according to their trivial homesteading principle. Rather, bourgeois claims derive their legitimacy from the fact that the owners they dispossessed are dead and failed to leave behind wills predictive of libertarian revolution. So just wait a generation or two, making sure to murder anyone you see taking vitamin infusions, cycling, or doing anything else indicative of both property-ownership and possible immortality. The vulgar libertarian who now stamps his feet at you will turn on your opponents with equal zealotry.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 6:49:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you not see a difference between the way a regular person owns, say, their home, their television, their car, etc, and someone just 'claiming' to own an entire territory?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 7:32:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 6:49:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
Do you not see a difference between the way a regular person owns, say, their home, their television, their car, etc, and someone just 'claiming' to own an entire territory?

I see four differences, the only relevant one being the one I already cited:

1) A regular person's home, television and car are possessions. But as anarcho-capitalists and other vulgar libertarians are capitalists, not mutualists, that distinction is not relevant. The vulgar libertarian does not believe one's property should be limited to occupancy and use.

2) A regular person's home, television and car were certainly purchased, the question being rather the legitimacy of the seller's claim to them and the buyer's to the money. Such regression ultimately takes us to exactly "just claiming", with all manner of government intervention along the way, and presumably you see a government's claim to its territory as no more legitimate if it then sells it.

3) Our humble "regular person" has in his home, television and car a relatively modest estate, whereas the vulgar libertarian puts no limit on the size of one's holdings.

4) The relevant difference is again that the government is, unlike the landlord, not pretentious to actually claim ownership. Indeed, it facilitates and makes official the very bequeathals and sales that ensure two generations (one the current owners, the second the beneficiaries of their wills) would pass before vulgar libertarians viewed a government claim of ownership as legitimate.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 1:22:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 7:32:27 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 9/25/2013 6:49:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
Do you not see a difference between the way a regular person owns, say, their home, their television, their car, etc, and someone just 'claiming' to own an entire territory?

I see four differences, the only relevant one being the one I already cited:

1) A regular person's home, television and car are possessions. But as anarcho-capitalists and other vulgar libertarians are capitalists, not mutualists, that distinction is not relevant. The vulgar libertarian does not believe one's property should be limited to occupancy and use.

If it's your property, who are you to claim what I can and cannot do with it, if I damage it then the punishment is that it's value will be decreased when and if I plan to sell it.

2) A regular person's home, television and car were certainly purchased, the question being rather the legitimacy of the seller's claim to them and the buyer's to the money. Such regression ultimately takes us to exactly "just claiming", with all manner of government intervention along the way, and presumably you see a government's claim to its territory as no more legitimate if it then sells it.

If you are assuming that libertarians are OK with theft, which is what I am getting from this, you are blatantly wrong.

3) Our humble "regular person" has in his home, television and car a relatively modest estate, whereas the vulgar libertarian puts no limit on the size of one's holdings.

Explain why one should put limits to someone's wealth that they earned themselves, whether this was through labor, climbing up the social ladder in a business, or taking a risk as an entrepreneur.

4) The relevant difference is again that the government is, unlike the landlord, not pretentious to actually claim ownership. Indeed, it facilitates and makes official the very bequeathals and sales that ensure two generations (one the current owners, the second the beneficiaries of their wills) would pass before vulgar libertarians viewed a government claim of ownership as legitimate.

No, someone's property is theirs and they can do what they wish with said property, I personally believe property should be able to be passed down for an unlimited amount of generations, why you would think otherwise is beyond me, possibly a sense of entitlement or envy?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:07:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All the while throwing out the distinction between government and private property on which all political philosophy is built.

Kudos.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:56:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I see no connection between your post and anything I have written, ever.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 3:03:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:07:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
All the while throwing out the distinction between government and private property on which all political philosophy is built.

Kudos.

lol
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 3:34:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:07:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
All the while throwing out the distinction between the public sphere and private sphere on which all political philosophy is built.

Kudos.

Somewhat more accurate (bearing in mind private property is an idea originating in the 1500s roughly). Could be more nitpicky and point to Plato, Aristotle, and a load of Ancient political philosophers (generally on whom all political philosophy is built) as not seeing this distinction. Most accurate would be the above, "on which all [liberal] philosophy is built" but then this kind of doesn't have the power to convince someone who is not a liberal.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 3:59:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 1:22:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/25/2013 7:32:27 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 9/25/2013 1:22:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/25/2013 7:32:27 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
2) A regular person's home, television and car were certainly purchased, the question being rather the legitimacy of the seller's claim to them and the buyer's to the money. Such regression ultimately takes us to exactly "just claiming", with all manner of government intervention along the way, and presumably you see a government's claim to its territory as no more legitimate if it then sells it.

If you are assuming that libertarians are OK with theft, which is what I am getting from this, you are blatantly wrong.

No, what I'm saying is that libertarians are OK with possession of stolen property in certain typical circumstances.

3) Our humble "regular person" has in his home, television and car a relatively modest estate, whereas the vulgar libertarian puts no limit on the size of one's holdings.

Explain why one should put limits to someone's wealth that they earned themselves, whether this was through labor, climbing up the social ladder in a business, or taking a risk as an entrepreneur.

You forgot interest from capital and rent from land. The latter is kind of the topic at hand.

4) The relevant difference is again that the government is, unlike the landlord, not pretentious to actually claim ownership. Indeed, it facilitates and makes official the very bequeathals and sales that ensure two generations (one the current owners, the second the beneficiaries of their wills) would pass before vulgar libertarians viewed a government claim of ownership as legitimate.

No, someone's property is theirs and they can do what they wish with said property, I personally believe property should be able to be passed down for an unlimited amount of generations, why you would think otherwise is beyond me, possibly a sense of entitlement or envy?

As I oppose the entitlement that is property, naturally I oppose its failure to die with its owner or indeed sooner. As for my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that a government claim of ownership would gain libertarian support within two generations, my evidence is not libertarian rules of bequeathal, but rather the effect of theft on bequeathal. The victim of theft, where government is with the thief, does not bother bequeathing what has been stolen. The Native American does not bequeath his former land, and the taxpayer does not bequeath his former money. Though the libertarian theoretically opposes the latter theft and sometimes even the former, he observes the victims' lack of wills and concludes the land belongs instead to those who sprang from or bought from the thieves and that the tax revenue belongs to whomever the government decided to give it to.