[quote]groo wrote:
Look at…the way that Israel was formed.
[/quote]
What you mean by a UN mandate and by warding off an unprovoked invasion by half a dozen Nazi trained Arab/Muslim nations acting in concert with the local Arab populations?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
…If there was no government backing property would only be held by the rule of might.
[/quote]
Oh for crying out loud, the government backing property IS held by the rule of might.
- In all fairness I think this is what NavJoe’s “Ahem” was all about so he beat me to it.
[/quote]
It was a socratic ahem.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Look at…the way that Israel was formed.
[/quote]
What you mean by a UN mandate and by warding off an unprovoked invasion by half a dozen Nazi trained Arab/Muslim nations acting in concert with the local Arab populations?[/quote]
A UN mandate.
Well if there was a UN mandate…
Do the UN mandates regarding Israel that exist today carry the same weight as that UN mandate?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
…Look at taking the land from the Native Americans in the US, or the way that Israel was formed…
[/quote]
BTW, what’s with the ridiculous smacks-of-politically-correctness cherry picking ^?
Almost ALL land since time began was taken by force.
For instance, long before Evil White American took the land of what is now the Dakotas and eastern Montana from the Sioux the Sioux had taken it from the Crows. Why do you think the Crows were avid allies of the US military?
And the Sioux were astronomically more Evil and harsh when they did so than the American.[/quote]
Well, in the non cherry picking departmemnt, for whatever reason you take other peoples land, they tend to get a bit irate.
Even if ownership of land is nothing but a bourgeois illusion, some people surely cling to it.,
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
…If there was no government backing property would only be held by the rule of might.
[/quote]
Oh for crying out loud, the government backing property IS held by the rule of might.
- In all fairness I think this is what NavJoe’s “Ahem” was all about so he beat me to it.
[/quote]
You guys are both right of course. I was more thinking about the government being more of a
acceptable than just being able to take someones property by violence but in the end whether the guy loses
his house through eminent domain or someone herding him off with a gun its all the same
to him.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
…Look at taking the land from the Native Americans in the US, or the way that Israel was formed…
[/quote]
BTW, what’s with the ridiculous smacks-of-politically-correctness cherry picking ^?
Almost ALL land since time began was taken by force.
For instance, long before Evil White American took the land of what is now the Dakotas and eastern Montana from the Sioux the Sioux had taken it from the Crows. Why do you think the Crows were avid allies of the US military?
And the Sioux were astronomically more Evil and harsh when they did so than the American.[/quote]
just picking a couple that everyone had heard of no intent to show a liberal bias.
My main contention is that a free market deflates the value of capital(mainly labor)
if some participants use more governmental force. And that its difficult to alleviate this
except by regulation.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
I’d say harder questions for libertarians would be should a free market be open to a nation that employs child slave, or forced labor. Taking the one means of capital that is available to every citizen and devaluing it by force seems counterintuitive to a free market. Allowing these countries to participate with no barriers is largely the same as acknowledging it is ok to take capital by force.
[/quote]
What in the hell makes you think Libertarians support child labor or slave labor? Seriously, where did you get that?
You guys seems to have some cooked up retardation thinking that libertarians support no government what so ever and let total anarchy rule?? All they are asking for is reducing the size of government and preserve the liberties of all. To not let govenment rule every apect of life from window tint to the speed you can push your shopping buggy at the store.
Not letting militias run wild on the street raping women and shooting up towns. Outside of Liftvs, I don’t know anybody supporting anarchy.
I don’t care that you don’t like libertarianism but criticize it’s actual tenets, not that garbage you have been led to believe by something or somebody…[/quote]
Libertarians support a free market internationally. If we do business with countries that use forced or slave labor without putting barriers in the market that is at least a tacit endorsement that the value of the free market overrides the morality of using such labor, but thats not the point I was trying to make. If we have an international market with no barriers and some participants bring down the value of one of the means of capital…in this case labor…artificially by force it compels the other actors in the market to keep the value of labor lower than it would be in a truly free market.
[/quote]
Support for a free market does not imply support for slave labor. There are laws and regulations to deal with it, libertarians do not support slave labor, sorry but you are introducing a huge stawman here.
Second, if you live where their is no free market, it’s all slave labor.[/quote]
You aren’t really getting what I mean. I am not saying libertarians support slave labor like its a plank of their economic policy.
By and large libertarian policies arise from the idea that in a free market those that have merit will prosper and that this is a good thing. They are against government force effecting capital. To make it simple capital is basically property, labor and natural resources. So libertarians would be totally against slave labor, the government seizing property, the theft of natural resources.
Now if states that don’t follow these libertarian ideals are allowed to be a part of an international market they effect the costs of capital in the market. If you can pollute freely for example, the cost of natural resources are cheaper in that state. In the case of labor in states that use forced labor the value of labor is forced below what it would be in a free market. This effects the value of labor in other states that don’t allow this type of labor coercion. A couple ways to work around this are to refuse to do business with states that allow this or to tariff them so its not worthwhile for companies to either move factories to these countries to take advantage of said labor or to lower wages in their own country because of the availability of cheap labor elsewhere.
My point is that libertarians tend to be very vocal in defense of property but less so in defense of the devaluation of labor though the use of force. The value of labor effects the vast majority of citizens of a state much more than protecting private property.[/quote]
Who is using labor by force, and which libertarians are supporting them? I suppose you must have at least one example, correct?[/quote]
Are you arguing against the existence of forced labor?
[/quote]
No, I have heard it still exists though of course I have no first hand experience. You are saying that their are free market entities utilizing force labor and libertarians who support it. Who and who? First and foremost if their is a company knowingly and willingly using forced labor I want to make sure my dollar does not support them in any way.
Actually the smatterings I have heard say with Nike a while back involve in some South East Asian sweat shops generated bad press and subsequently they were forced to stop their utilization and find ways to ensure that they are not involved with that. So in that case the free market actually put an end to a questionable practice, because bad press leads to poor sales.
The observations of using questionable labor of any kind, in anything stemmed from government meddling. The cost of business in the U.S. gets to high so companies outsource to where ever it’s cheap and easy to do business taking jobs with it. BUT in a lot of those cheap labor cases, it a matter that cost of living is so cheap that low wages still elicit a pretty good living.
Less government meddling on-shore can keep these companies from seeking to do business elsewhere. Because while the initial cost of production drops there are an infinite amount of obstacles and caveats to doing business abroad, that bringing back on shore would releave a lot of complications. So this idea that companies just want to outsource no matter what is false, but if it costs so much to produce here that they cannot compete they may not have a choice.
Well, I am asking for examples. Who? Where? Then we can discuss specifics. If your just argue general concept well I would of course agree that forced labor is wrong and support of any kind of it is wrong. Small pockets of highly illegal activity utilizes forced labor, sure. But where is this happening on a large scale and who supports it.
It is not a libertarian position to have a completely free and unregulated market it. It’s to keep it to a minimum and apply it only for things that are necessary.
I would pen this as an intrinsic moral? Is it happening on a scale that it needs specfically to be prohibited by law or rule?
Again dude, I need an example. Right now all I have is your word that it’s happening on an alarming scale and that libertarians wholesale support it. I have seen evidence of neither.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
So if I farm a land for 10 years, irrigate it and increase its yield by a factor of 10 I don’t have as much as the tiniest claim on it? I strongly disagree with that. Once you’ve worked on land, once you’ve invested significant labor into improving it beyond its natural state it becomes yours.
[/quote]
So if I hire you to work on my land for 10 years and you add significant value to it…you have a legitimate claim of ownership to it?
[/quote]
No more claim than you allow him. The unowned land was UNOWNED so he made it his by “mixing his labour” with it. This is simply an extension of self-ownership. Your land is OWNED so he does not have a “right” to it.
This is not complicated stuff.[/quote]
Actually its no more claim than the GOVERNMENT allows him. You have nothing to do with it. Look at taking the land from the Native Americans in the US, or the way that Israel was formed. Property is only owned and held through the force of the government backing it. If there was no government backing property would only be held by the rule of might.
[/quote]
Not all of the land belong to the Native Americans, but I agree whole heartily that treatment they received and how they were dealt with was abominable. There is nothing we can do about it now.
That being said, though, nobody in the world sits on unconquered land. No matter where you stand, somebody who was there before was forced off it in someway. If there are examples they are few and far between.
Israel is probably the most ‘legal’ country in the world. They didn’t just come there in 1947 and take it, England owned it. They decided to give it up and it was decided by the UN to put Israel there.
But you are right on one thing, you can own your own land, but only in as much as your government lets you. We just happened to live in a place whose founding fathers took land ownership very seriously.
It’s true, there is no inherent right to private property through a secular argument. Then again, there is no inherent right to share resources/property with others. There’s only might.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
…Look at taking the land from the Native Americans in the US, or the way that Israel was formed…
[/quote]
BTW, what’s with the ridiculous smacks-of-politically-correctness cherry picking ^?
Almost ALL land since time began was taken by force.
For instance, long before Evil White American took the land of what is now the Dakotas and eastern Montana from the Sioux the Sioux had taken it from the Crows. Why do you think the Crows were avid allies of the US military?
And the Sioux were astronomically more Evil and harsh when they did so than the American.[/quote]
just picking a couple that everyone had heard of no intent to show a liberal bias.
My main contention is that a free market deflates the value of capital(mainly labor)
if some participants use more governmental force. And that its difficult to alleviate this
except by regulation. [/quote]
But you simply misunderstand the libertarian stance, they don’t support a total lack of regulation of any kind. It’s only regulate what you have to prevent abuse. Don’t regulate to the point of encroaching on free market forces, unless there is abuse.
That’s way different that ‘no regulation at all’, nor is it no government at all. Just look no further than Somalia to figure out why that model doesn’t work at all. Where there is a power vacuum, there are several hundred evil cocks suckers ready to fill the void.
Libertarianism was born simply out of the recognition that hundreds of years of law making has began to way heavily on it’s citizens and that simply doing nothing in some cases would have, and is better that doing something just to say you did. Politicians are like dogs and the constituency are like fire plugs, ever dog has to leave his mark, just like every politician has to leave his. After time, you kill the grass with too much pea. There is to much pea in the people of the U.S. and it needs to be dialed back.
I am not a libertarian, but do hold many of the same views, where I split is their heavy emphasis on states rights, where I still believe in strong central government (just less of it), and abortion, but I don’t want to start an abortion thread, I am just saying that’s where I split.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
…Look at taking the land from the Native Americans in the US, or the way that Israel was formed…
[/quote]
BTW, what’s with the ridiculous smacks-of-politically-correctness cherry picking ^?
Almost ALL land since time began was taken by force.
For instance, long before Evil White American took the land of what is now the Dakotas and eastern Montana from the Sioux the Sioux had taken it from the Crows. Why do you think the Crows were avid allies of the US military?
And the Sioux were astronomically more Evil and harsh when they did so than the American.[/quote]
just picking a couple that everyone had heard of no intent to show a liberal bias.
My main contention is that a free market deflates the value of capital(mainly labor)
if some participants use more governmental force. And that its difficult to alleviate this
except by regulation. [/quote]
But you simply misunderstand the libertarian stance, they don’t support a total lack of regulation of any kind. It’s only regulate what you have to prevent abuse. Don’t regulate to the point of encroaching on free market forces, unless there is abuse.
That’s way different that ‘no regulation at all’, nor is it no government at all. Just look no further than Somalia to figure out why that model doesn’t work at all. Where there is a power vacuum, there are several hundred evil cocks suckers ready to fill the void.
Libertarianism was born simply out of the recognition that hundreds of years of law making has began to way heavily on it’s citizens and that simply doing nothing in some cases would have, and is better that doing something just to say you did. Politicians are like dogs and the constituency are like fire plugs, ever dog has to leave his mark, just like every politician has to leave his. After time, you kill the grass with too much pea. There is to much pea in the people of the U.S. and it needs to be dialed back.
I am not a libertarian, but do hold many of the same views, where I split is their heavy emphasis on states rights, where I still believe in strong central government (just less of it), and abortion, but I don’t want to start an abortion thread, I am just saying that’s where I split.[/quote]
I for the most part agree with less government involvement in trade. At the very least I’d like to see less collusion with the large corporations in the US. I do think that governments such as China do use forced labor at the very least for their infrastructure projects which in turn forces down their overall capital costs. I do think we should tariff trade with countries that nationalize property or used forced labor.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4j1VKZq34TM
This is one article about forced labor lower in the supply chain in the production of cars from 2006. Obviously no one wants to support this, but what should we do to enforce it other than banning trade with the countries that enslave their own? The automakers may not have known but that is a separate issue.
I think libertarianism can be summed up in one phrase: Live and let live.
What do you guys think about it?
[quote]orion wrote:
Well, in the non cherry picking departmemnt, for whatever reason you take other peoples land, they tend to get a bit irate.
[/quote]
No Orion. you’re just not understanding. Look at it from the point of view of the self-absorbed American National Imperialist. You gotta realize this only applies when the US is attacked. When these defenseless little countries are continuously bombed, sanctioned, occupied, subject to having puppet dictators installed, and its citizens subject to torture and drone killings they’re supposed to bend over and say thank you. They’re all insane and mentally disturbed because they don’t like those things done to them.
The US is the one with the world spanning empire and yet these little nations are the evil ones. ROTFLMAO! Hell, most conquerors believe that.
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
I think libertarianism can be summed up in one phrase: Live and let live.
What do you guys think about it?[/quote]
That’s about right. Most busybody do-gooders can’t accept that though whether they be the neocon version (kill everyone in sight if they look cross eyed at his imperial oligarchy in DC) or the left version (steal from everyone to make government 5 million times larger yet gets pissed off when this stolen money ends up getting getting used to murder people overseas). Neither of these fools see their own hypocrisy.
Libertarians always remind me of a Charlie Daniels song ‘longhaired country boy’ or something
But I ain’t askin’ nobody for nothin’,
If I can’t get it on my own.
You don’t like the way I’m livin’,
You just leave this long-haired country boy alone.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s true, there is no inherent right to private property through a secular argument. Then again, there is no inherent right to share resources/property with others. There’s only might.[/quote]
Property is an individual right inherent to humans irrespective of the source of their humanity if “right” is defined as “default condition”.
The default condition of every human individual is self-ownership. Private property is simply an elaboration of self-ownership roughly in this progression: Self-ownership → life → liberty → labor → product of labor(capital) → voluntary exchange of capital → voluntary contract
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Property is an individual right inherent to humans irrespective of the source of their humanity[/quote]
Consulting my Bio and Anatomy and Physiology texts, I can find no inherent emergent property called ‘rights.’ Much less, property rights.
The default condition of every human individual is complete and total dependence on other individuals. No man carried himself through labor. Or, nursed himself. Nor, is he reinventing the collected knowledge of humanity (mathematics, science, mechanics, etc.) every time he wants to accomplish some task. Whether he is a slave or a free citizen is determined by his might and the might of those around him. A man might not even be allowed to make it out of the womb, so little are his ‘rights’ to self-ownership, life, and liberty.
There are no secular inherent rights, only preferences. And the presence or absence of sufficient might to enforce preferences. Man is not commanded by nature, to be a capitalist or socialist. To own a field individually, or as a people.
Man is only man as we know him, because others have allowed it and made it so.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Property is an individual right inherent to humans irrespective of the source of their humanity[/quote]
Consulting my Bio and Anatomy and Physiology texts, I can find no inherent emergent property called ‘rights.’ Much less, property rights.
The default condition of every human individual is complete and total dependence on other individuals. No man carried himself through labor. Or, nursed himself. Nor, is he reinventing the collected knowledge of humanity (mathematics, science, mechanics, etc.) every time he wants to accomplish some task. Whether he is a slave or a free citizen is determined by his might and the might of those around him. A man might not even be allowed to make it out of the womb, so little are his ‘rights’ to self-ownership, life, and liberty.
There are no secular inherent rights, only preferences. And the presence or absence of sufficient might to enforce preferences. Man is not commanded by nature, to be a capitalist or socialist. To own a field individually, or as a people.
Man is only man as we know it, because others have allowed it and made it so.
[/quote]
Good post Sloth.