slave
Always stuck between 13-38Hz and tired of it.
Joined: Feb 29, 2012
Age: 100
Posts: 1328
Location: Dystopia Planetia
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:00 am Post subject: Re: What is the Difference between Anarchists and Libertaria |
 |
|
| pandabear wrote: | These days, you don't hear much about Anarchists in the USA any more. It is, however, rather stylish to fancy oneself a Libertarian.
What is the difference between the two? |
Both groups are slaves.
Both groups will fail in their desire to change the existing power structure.
Both groups will serve the Masters until death.
The Masters will punish anyone who defies them.
_________________
Since the birth of civilization, masters have controlled the masses.Our Masters rule over every nation and no one can defy them.They will attain Absolute Power as we reach the Singularity. Any who resist will be destroyed.I will not resist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
scubasteve
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 18, 2009
Age: 28
Posts: 993
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:58 am Post subject: Re: What is the Difference between Anarchists and Libertaria |
|
|
| slave wrote: | Both groups are slaves.
Both groups will fail in their desire to change the existing power structure.
Both groups will serve the Masters until death.
The Masters will punish anyone who defies them. |
You're wrong. More and more young Americans are joining both of these groups. When enough young people believe in an idea, they can change the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1657
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anarkhos wrote: | | Property isn't a "power structure". |
Yes it is. "This is my property" means exactly "if you take this, I can use the government to apprehend you". That's a power structure.
| anarkhos wrote: | | Oh? And who is the property being stolen from? |
Everyone else who could have used it if it wasn't claimed as property by someone.
| anarkhos wrote: | | And you do realize that without property laws the term theft has no meaning, right? |
I disagree. It has a moral meaning. Libertarians will often say "taxation is theft". But taxation isn't illegal! If "taxation is theft" makes sense, then "property is theft" makes sense.
| anarkhos wrote: | | So, uh, that computer of yours. Can you mail it to me? I would like to use it, and you wouldn't want to commit violence by depriving me of its use would you? |
I am not claiming that I am going to right all of the wrongs in the world. We are faced with the world as it is. But the foundational issues are still important. A libertarian would claim that I own my computer. How, exactly, did this come to pass? Well, I bought it with my money. Well, why was it my money? Because I earned it by working. Well, why did the money belong to the people who I worked for? Trace it back. There is a crime, long ago, that started all of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
scubasteve
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 18, 2009
Age: 28
Posts: 993
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | A libertarian would claim that I own my computer. How, exactly, did this come to pass? Well, I bought it with my money. Well, why was it my money? Because I earned it by working. Well, why did the money belong to the people who I worked for? Trace it back. There is a crime, long ago, that started all of this. |
How does it matter why the money belonged to your employers? If you earned it through honest work, it is rightfully yours. That's how the reward system works. Without property, there is no reward. Without rewards, the only way to motivate people is by holding a gun to their head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | I am not claiming that I am going to right all of the wrongs in the world. We are faced with the world as it is. But the foundational issues are still important. A libertarian would claim that I own my computer. How, exactly, did this come to pass? Well, I bought it with my money. Well, why was it my money? Because I earned it by working. Well, why did the money belong to the people who I worked for? Trace it back. There is a crime, long ago, that started all of this. |
Not necessarly.
Ultimately, something might have been stolen to "nature", which can be understood as stealing from every other human and every other living thing (and even that is far-fetched), but the computer is also what was done to it, the actual human work and transformation. This property was then transferred against someone else's work, work which had been exchanged for money. That is what founds property, if we "trace it back". This includes intellectual property, too, which is, well... the result of intellectual rather than physical work. Of course, it becomes very muddled when it gets closer to land claims and property, and even exploited land has changed hands so many times and for so many reasons that the actual, original human work of clearing the land is lost to our knowledge.
However, the justification of property is entirely unimportant and pointless. The real question is: is property useful, or is it not? Also, thence: Would we be better without it? What would happen without it? How would the change be possible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1657
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scubasteve wrote: | | If you earned it through honest work, it is rightfully yours |
No, it doesn't work like that. If person B steals an object from person A, and the person B gives it to person C in exchange for work, then a crime has taken place. It doesn't matter that person C didn't know about it.
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | Ultimately, something might have been stolen to "nature", which can be understood as stealing from every other human and every other living thing |
Makes sense to me!
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | the computer is also what was done to it, the actual human work and transformation |
Here's a riddle for you: think of all the people who gathered the resources for my computer. Think of all the labourers who constructed my computer. Did any of those people own my computer, at any point?
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | However, the justification of property is entirely unimportant and pointless. |
Not true. Libertarianism lives or dies based on whether it can give a coherent account of how people came to own things. If you claim to be a libertarian, and you don't have an answer to this central question, then your politics are silly.
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | The real question is: is property useful, or is it not? Also, thence: Would we be better without it? What would happen without it? How would the change be possible? |
You're confusing two different issues:
(1.) is the concept of property desirable?
(2.) can the specific people who claim to currently own specific things make a good moral case for their ownership? |
|
| Back to top |
|
scubasteve
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 18, 2009
Age: 28
Posts: 993
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | scubasteve wrote: | | If you earned it through honest work, it is rightfully yours |
No, it doesn't work like that. If person B steals an object from person A, and the person B gives it to person C in exchange for work, then a crime has taken place. It doesn't matter that person C didn't know about it. |
What object? Both of our previous quotes were talking about money.
If Bob robs Peter to pay Paul, would Paul be compelled to repay Peter? I think not. Bob is the criminal. Paul did nothing wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
donnie_darko
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2009
Age: 23
Posts: 1794
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What do you call the belief that government should be mostly done locally, with only a very weak emergent federal system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
scubasteve
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 18, 2009
Age: 28
Posts: 993
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| donnie_darko wrote: | | What do you call the belief that government should be mostly done locally, with only a very weak emergent federal system? |
That would probably fall under some form of Anarchism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
donnie_darko
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2009
Age: 23
Posts: 1794
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scubasteve wrote: | | donnie_darko wrote: | | What do you call the belief that government should be mostly done locally, with only a very weak emergent federal system? |
That would probably fall under some form of Anarchism. |
Yes I thought so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29338
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scubasteve wrote: | | donnie_darko wrote: | | What do you call the belief that government should be mostly done locally, with only a very weak emergent federal system? |
That would probably fall under some form of Anarchism. |
How can that be? Anarchists oppose the State in any form or degree.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
scubasteve
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 18, 2009
Age: 28
Posts: 993
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | scubasteve wrote: | | donnie_darko wrote: | | What do you call the belief that government should be mostly done locally, with only a very weak emergent federal system? |
That would probably fall under some form of Anarchism. |
How can that be? Anarchists oppose the State in any form or degree.
ruveyn |
No, you're right. A "federal system", even a very weak one, probably excludes anarchism.
I'm not sure what you'd call this... donnie_darkoism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
donnie_darko
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2009
Age: 23
Posts: 1794
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess I'd be a minarchist like ruveyn, though I think we'd probably have quite different ideas of what responsibilities this minimal state would have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9246
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | Uggh, I'm feeling like I'm going to need to make another "this is NOT libertarianism" thread with all the strawman threads about the ethos lately.
Here's how I think of libertarianism in it's simplest form; those proposing a new restriction bear the burden of proving it's necessity. It's really that simple, a bias against an ever encroaching state and towards the least amount of government that will get the necessary done, that's it. |
That's the operative word that people are bound to disagree on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9246
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aspi-rant wrote: | hm. bump... wondering why nobody reacts on my last post in this thread…
maybe i should quote less and more specific and emphasize some of the interesting part...
| Quote: | 8< - - -
Some of the more intriguing results reported in this study involve the Empathizer-Systemizer scale. The scale measures the tendency to empathize, defined as "the drive to identify another person's emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion," and to systemize, or "the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system." Libertarians are the only group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing—and they scored a lot higher. The authors go on to suggest that systemizing is “characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating autism.” They then add, “We might say that liberals have the most ‘feminine’ cognitive style, and libertarians the most ‘masculine.’” They speculate that the “feminizing” of the Democratic Party in the 1970s may thus explain why libertarians moved into the Republican Party in the 1980s
8< - - - |
maybe this helped. |
But it seems like a lot of libertarians fail in systematizing when it comes to looking at things as a whole. They derive everything from a set of moral axioms regarding a single individual and his/her property. No attention is paid to the fact that some of that dreaded and unfair "redistribution of wealth" is needed to fund certain things that our overall economy depends on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
