That's part of the problem with them.

In a functioning society, the rights of the individual are inseparable from the rights of the collective.

To suggest otherwise is to ignore the fact that we are part of a system, we aren't just a collection of individuals.

If you accept that you want to be part of a functioning society, you have to allow for some collective actions that supersede some individual abilities.

9/25/2013 1:12:30 AM

How can you say that they are not homogonous and then follow it directly by saying what they want? Can't do that.

9/25/2013 7:35:11 AM

Sure I can...libertarians are not homogenous. They want a less expansive, domineering federal government .

See? I did it again, and nobody would argue those points.

9/25/2013 8:58:56 AM

then why is it wrong for him to generalize but okay for you?

(because I would certainly argue with those points, libertarians are fine with a huge, domineering government for some things)

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2013 9:05:46 AM

I think they're arguing against libertarianism in its purest ideological form. And there are a lot more than just an "inconsequential few." For instance, pretty much the entire Tea Party, which is possibly the largest faction of the Republican Party. Maybe the individual voters don't want that, but the people they keep sending to Congress are sure doing their best to dismantle government to the point of crippling it.

9/25/2013 10:50:41 AM

Quote :

"In a functioning society, the rights of the individual are inseparable from the rights of the collective. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the fact that we are part of a system, we aren't just a collection of individuals. "

You haven't made a compelling argument for anything. The collective cannot be held liable for actions. The collective does not have a common morality or values. The collective is purely conceptual, but the individual is real and can be quantified. You're human, you have a brain, you control your actions, etc.

When you talk about the the rights of the collective, what you're really saying is that it's fine to trample the rights of the minority as long as the majority says that doing so is "for the greater good". The collective doesn't make laws, and the collective doesn't enforce them - groups of individuals do. Individuals with interests that, in more cases than not, conflict with those of the "collective".

Some of these other claims are pretty absurd - that libertarians want a huge domineering government, that libertarianism in its purest ideological form is embodied by the "Tea Party".

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 11:47:32 AM

Quote :

"The collective is purely conceptual, but the individual is real and can be quantified."

The collective is just as real and can be quantified. For example, in the US we have a democratic popular vote. The outcome of that vote is not conceptual, it is real, and it is quantified. The collective exists just as much as the individual, in fact, the collective is a group of individuals as it's definition would indicate, therefore in order for either one of them to be real, they both have to be real.

9/25/2013 11:50:38 AM

Quote :

"The outcome of that vote is not conceptual, it is real, and it is quantified."

The outcome of the vote is real because individuals act based on the results. "The collective" cannot act. The collective does not have a mind.

A forest contains real objects, but the forest itself is abstract. It's necessary for us to use abstractions in language for simplicity. "I got lost in the forest" is much easier than saying "I got lost in an area where there was a dense population of trees, other plants, wild animals, and no man-made indications of direction or location".

So, no, the abstract and the real are absolutely separable. One is a communication device, the other describes objects, their properties, and possibly their behavior and preferences depending on the thing.

9/25/2013 11:59:40 AM

A forest is not abstract, a forest is a system. A collective is a system. Individuals comprise groups and those groups comprise the collective. A collective is absolutely quantifiable. It's not an abstract idea, it's just incredibly complex.

If you believe that any individual freedom should be taken away (such as murder), then there is no ideological debate left except for a negotiation on what level of individual liberty should be bargained away at the expense of a more optimal society (optimal system). What power and liberty should the individual be expected to cede in order to benefit the "general welfare?"

9/25/2013 12:42:38 PM

Ahhh semantics. The purest form of argument.

9/25/2013 12:47:49 PM

Quote :

"A forest contains real objects, but the forest itself is abstract. It's necessary for us to use abstractions in language for simplicity. "I got lost in the forest" is much easier than saying "I got lost in an area where there was a dense population of trees, other plants, wild animals, and no man-made indications of direction or location"."

Are rivers are abstract because they are a collection of water droplets, fish and rocks? Are you abstract because you are a collection of cells?

9/25/2013 1:03:23 PM

Quote :

""The collective" cannot act. The collective does not have a mind."

Yes it can. It often does. It's like you've never taken a sociology course...or watched national geographic.

9/25/2013 1:07:35 PM

Quote :

"A forest is not abstract, a forest is a system. A collective is a system. Individuals comprise groups and those groups comprise the collective. A collective is absolutely quantifiable. It's not an abstract idea, it's just incredibly complex."

When you talk about "the will of the collective" or something like that, you're speaking in absurdities, though. That's at the core of this discussion. You wouldn't say, "the forest has bark". Well, yeah, there is bark in the forest...but the bark is a property of the tree, not of the forest.

The human (brain + flesh + spirit if you're into that kind of stuff) has preferences and a will. A human acts (that is, makes decisions in the brain that manifest in an apparently physical way). A human can act in such a way that modifies or influences the actions of other humans. The collective does not have a will any more than the forest has bark or fur. The preferences, behaviors, emotions, senses, and all other properties of humans belong to individuals.

Essentially, when you say "X is the will of the collective, and we plan to enforce the will of the collective", you're actually saying "X is the will of me and the people who agree with me, and we plan to enforce this will on all of those who happen to fall within certain political borders".

Quote :

"If you believe that any individual freedom should be taken away (such as murder), then there is no ideological debate left except for a negotiation on what level of individual liberty should be bargained away at the expense of a more optimal society (optimal system). What power and liberty should the individual be expected to cede in order to benefit the "general welfare?""

Put simply, freedom does not extend to actions that constrict another's freedom to act themselves, or even actions that harm that person in a demonstrable way. Murder entirely eliminates that person as an actor. Rape or assault damage the flesh. Theft is taking a person's method for survival that they otherwise would have had.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 1:18:07 PM

I love how you ALWAYS, I mean, ALWAYS, bring up property in defense of your ideology.


You cannot sit there and declare that "the collective" is a ideological construct and therefore absurd, and then turn around and speak about "property" as if it is a universally recognized conceit.

9/25/2013 1:35:31 PM

I see you edited out "property"

but you replaced it with this:

Quote :

"Theft is taking a person's method for survival that they otherwise would have had."

I could tee off on this quite easily and catch you contradicting your own political ideology.

9/25/2013 1:42:52 PM

Where did I bring up property?

Quote :

"I could tee off on this quite easily and catch you contradicting your own political ideology. "

I didn't edit that part lol. Looks like you're the one that got caught? My last edit was at 1:18, your post was at 1:35. Do we need to get forensics in here, or will you see yourself out? To me, it looks like you assumed that I'd make a certain argument and responded to that, rather than to what I actually wrote.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 1:43:10 PM

I dunno, maybe? Or maybe I just assumed you'd go straight to property.


But you really are opening up a can of worms when you talk about theft as denying someone's own method of survival. If a lumber company comes into town and starts removing trees and destroying land that a community needs for their survival, would they be within their right to trespass on the companies property and prevent further excavation of land that they depend on for their survival?

Which side would you be on? The side of the company who "purchased" the land legally and was entitled to their property? Or the side of the community that needed that land for their own survival? Hmmmm, quite the rubik's cube.

9/25/2013 1:52:41 PM

I don't really understand what you're trying to argue at this point. The tyranny of the majority? What about the tyranny of economic exploitation? The tyranny of unregulated financial markets? The tyranny of being a victim in any system other than the ideological minority in a democracy? There are countless ways to be oppressed in an advanced, modern society other than by the government.

Is increasing productivity of a factory by simply making the workers work harder without additional compensation not the "theft" of their labor, their means of survival?

9/25/2013 1:53:57 PM

Quote :

"But you really are opening up a can of worms when you talk about theft as denying someone's own method of survival. If a lumber company comes into town and starts removing trees and destroying land that a community needs for their survival, would they be within their right to trespass on the companies property and prevent further excavation of land that they depend on for their survival?"

Yup, they're within their rights. The lumber company has a responsibility to determine if the land/forest is in use. If they're derelict in that duty, then they shouldn't get too mad when someone puts a stop to their operation.

Now, let's take a second example: the community depends on the forest for survival, and the state comes in and says that this is a wildlife refuge and cannot be used or even accessed without express permission from the state. Has anyone been violated here, or is this just government looking out for the greater good?

Quote :

"I don't really understand what you're trying to argue at this point. The tyranny of the majority? What about the tyranny of economic exploitation?"

You mean when someone voluntarily works at a wage that you think should be higher? Yeah, that isn't exploitation, that's the process that has allowed hundreds of millions of people to escape true poverty in the past century.

Quote :

"The tyranny of unregulated financial markets?"

You're abusing the word "tyranny" at this point. No one should be forced to participate in any financial market. The fact that people feel forced into stocks today is a result of government. In 2013, saving is a losing proposition. Investment is the only way to break even.

Quote :

"Is increasing productivity of a factory by simply making the workers work harder without additional compensation not the "theft" of their labor, their means of survival?"

If you think you can make workers work harder without changing the incentive structure (whether it's direct wages or something else), then you know very little about what motivates people to work.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 1:56:53 PM

I have to admit, when Libertarianism is focused on real world issues, it's just an absolute home run. Case in point:



You just can't disagree with that. It is basically 100% indisputable that there are abuses of government power. I'm not even sure if going after those abuses should even be called Libertarian, it's American.

Maybe "Libertarianism" just means that our checks and balances aren't working well enough right now.

9/25/2013 2:03:32 PM

d357r0y3r is more of an anarchist than a libertarian, anyways

9/25/2013 2:05:33 PM

I see the former as the logical extension of the latter. I believed in "minimal government". That's what the U.S. was designed to be. Minimal government opens the door for an explosion of economic development; sociopaths will want to find ways to get a cut of that growth without actually providing additional value, which is where expansion of state power comes in.

In short, "cutting back" on the bad parts of government doesn't really work. The mechanisms are in place to add laws, but there's no leverage to remove them. Outright rejection of the bad parts is the purest form of participation. Not throwing molotov cocktails through shop windows kind of "anarchy", rejecting failed state solutions and coming up with better ones.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 2:15 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 2:12:02 PM

Quote :

"Yup, they're within their rights. The lumber company has a responsibility to determine if the land/forest is in use. If they're derelict in that duty, then they shouldn't get too mad when someone puts a stop to their operation. Now, let's take a second example: the community depends on the forest for survival, and the state comes in and says that this is a wildlife refuge and cannot be used or even accessed without express permission from the state. Has anyone been violated here, or is this just government looking out for the greater good?"

the lumber companies determination of "in use" may be entirely different than anyone elses

and why do you assume that profit driven corporations are going to be benevolent? you have much much more input in regards to the actions of the US Fish and Wild Life service and national wildlife refuges than you do input for a corporation. its fantasy to think that private corporations always do good and the government always does bad.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 2:16 PM. Reason : creation of a national wildlife refuge requires impactstudies, alternate proposals, and public input]

9/25/2013 2:14:39 PM

Quote :

"I see the former as the logical extension of the latter."

I'm quite opposed to this view.

Anarchy is actually less individual-centric if you think about it. Libertarianism in the form that we're usually talking about it is built on top of the modern Western idea of the individual being the most important level of organization and decision making. Think about the phrase "individual responsibility". Even if you're staunchly individualistic, you may favor more government because you despise other small pockets of human organization.

On the other hand, if we honestly have anarchy, you better believe I'll be aligned with small groups. That's what you get security from, and ultimately just about everything. This is why the apocalyptic films are so-often focusing on tribes of humans. I don't think that's even compatible with many forms of modern libertarianism. It seems almost the antithesis of Republicans.

9/25/2013 2:16:47 PM

I absolutely agree that there are legitimate abuses of government power.

Part of the problem, I think, is that as Americans we expect there to be abuses of power. If it wasn't so expected and if we didn't hold bureaucrats to such a low standard then I think that would help. I think not prosecuting whistle-blowers would be a helpful step. I think tightening the rules on lobbyists (and big private money in elections) would help. I think that not hiring people from corporations to run organizations which oversee those corporations would help.

Do I naively believe that we can run a perfect government with no corruption? Absolutely not. But there are TONS of things we can do that would produce more favorable outcomes. My problem with libertarians is that they fail to recognize or even debate whether these things would work in favor of the intellectually lazy argument that the government is inherently corrupt. I think a more objective and fair argument is that unchecked power in the hands of the wrong person is a more significant source of corruption, whether that be private or public. But it doesn't mean we should just give up.

9/25/2013 2:18:10 PM

Quote :

"the lumber companies determination of "in use" may be entirely different than anyone elses"

That's going to be a real problem for the lumber company when the entire community is against them.

Quote :

"and why do you assume that profit driven corporations are going to be benevolent? you have much much more input in regards to the actions of the US Fish and Wild Life service and national wildlife refugees than you do input for a corporation. its fantasy to think that private corporations always do good and the government always does bad."

I haven't assumed that anywhere. I don't assume that individuals will be benevolent, whether those individuals are heading up a company or doing something else entirely. Sociopaths exist. There are people that will do whatever they can get away with and they are not hindered by guilt or empathy. I can think of a wide range of solutions to limit the damage of these individuals, but among them is not creating a static, non-competing organization that also owns the military and an array of weapons that could bring about the apocalypse. Running a government is a sociopath's wet dream.

Quote :

"I'm quite opposed to this view. Anarchy is actually less individual-centric if you think about it. Libertarianism in the form that we're usually talking about it is built on top of the modern Western idea of the individual being the most important level of organization and decision making. Think about the phrase "individual responsibility". Even if you're staunchly individualistic, you may favor more government because you despise other small pockets of human organization."

It's a double edged sword. You might favor it if you're in the ideological majority, but what happens in an Idiocracy scenario where the intellectual class is far outnumbered by the hillbilly/gangster/uneducated class? Government becomes a beast that cannot be caged and cannot be rolled back.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 2:22:29 PM

Quote :

"Minimal government opens the door for an explosion of economic development; sociopaths will want to find ways to get a cut of that growth without actually providing additional value, which is where expansion of state power comes in."

What good is that economic development if it only benefits a small minority or is unsustainable. These are legitimate criticisms of our current capitalist system, which is increasingly revealing itself to be a system which thrives on bubbles and only delivers gains to those who already have wealth.

What about the sociopaths who are already at the top and will stop at nothing to remain there even though they've been rendered obsolete? That's the problem with your argument, you completely focus on the government side of the problem and fail to even mention instances where the private sector also fails to adhere to your moral and ethical standards. It leaves giant holes in your argument which you try to paper over with your porous ideological positions.

9/25/2013 2:30:28 PM

Quote :

"That's going to be a real problem for the lumber company when the entire community is against them. "

why, the community has no power compared to the lumber company. without a government they have no recourse except to sit there and take it.

9/25/2013 2:37:01 PM

Quote :

"What good is that economic development if it only benefits a small minority or is unsustainable. These are legitimate criticisms of our current capitalist system, which is increasingly revealing itself to be a system which thrives on bubbles and only delivers gains to those who already have wealth. "

The economic development that occurs under minimal government doesn't just benefit a small minority. Standard oil may have had crazy profit margins, but they were also able to sell a good product at a price much lower than anyone else, which in turn increased productivity in other areas and made related goods cheaper. Yes, rich progressives in the U.S. have their opinions, but the developing world would tell you to fuck off if you told them that goods becoming cheaper in real terms isn't "sustainable".

Quote :

"What about the sociopaths who are already at the top and will stop at nothing to remain there even though they've been rendered obsolete? That's the problem with your argument, you completely focus on the government side of the problem and fail to even mention instances where the private sector also fails to adhere to your moral and ethical standards. It leaves giant holes in your argument which you try to paper over with your porous ideological positions."

What about them? That's kind of the discussion we were having. You can't really vote out sociopaths because there are thousands more waiting for their turn to steer the warship. If you want to wait for the right people to get elected and do the right thing, you'll be waiting forever.

We all know that immoral and unethical behavior exists outside of government. I don't ignore it. We all understand that it's wrong to hit people, that it's wrong to steal from people, that it's wrong to manipulate people...or at least I hope we do. We should also hold ourselves to a certain level of virtue because we know what it's like to be wronged and we don't want to inflict that pain on someone else, and then we should raise our children in a way that reflects that, etc.

Some CEO out there as we speak is overseeing some kind of unethical behavior. If it comes to light, then I get to make a decision to sell my stock in that company, not shop there, talk shit about the company on the internet, whatever. I have a lot of options. They can't put me in jail for not shopping there. If the President does something unethical, then he can order entire departments to cover it up. He can use the military. He can shut down opposition in a myriad of ways. At the end of the day, even if it comes out that what he did was wrong and a lot of people died as a result, he's not liable for shit. He will have protection the best pension you can get for the rest of his life.

So, no, as I've stated again and again, private sector misconduct and government misconduct are not on the same level. They're both bad, they both deserve to suffer consequences, but the argument that we should opt for the devil we know as rather bad in my opinion.

Quote :

"why, the community has no power compared to the lumber company. without a government they have no recourse except to sit there and take it."

The community can have a lot of power. The surrounding community can make it very, very difficult for the company to operate efficiently. They can sabotage transportation to and from the work site. They can refuse access to community goods and services.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 3:46:39 PM

Quote :

"The community can have a lot of power. The surrounding community can make it very, very difficult for the company to operate efficiently. They can sabotage transportation to and from the work site. They can refuse access to community goods and services."

It's almost as if you are asking them to act....




























... collectively.







DUN-DUN-DUUUUN!!!

9/25/2013 4:01:52 PM

Sure, I have no problem with that, as long as they're not putting the people who don't pay up in cages.

9/25/2013 4:03:27 PM

Quote :

"The community can have a lot of power. The surrounding community can make it very, very difficult for the company to operate efficiently. They can sabotage transportation to and from the work site. They can refuse access to community goods and services. "

and the logging company can simply hire or start a private military or police force to protect their transactions, power through violence (or threat of) of which you think only the government is capable

basically, you still haven't made a case for how to protect the voice of the weak individual or the collective minority without a government

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2013 4:07:36 PM

Quote :

"Yes, rich progressives in the U.S. have their opinions, but the developing world would tell you to fuck off if you told them that goods becoming cheaper in real terms isn't "sustainable"."

Have you ever even been to a poor country? I don't think you have. I mean that. Because if you did, you wouldn't talk about having the option of "selling stock" as a countermeasure to corporate abuse of power. That's some weak-sauce rationale. The natural inertia of power is to consolidate, which lends itself to abuse. Whether it be in the form of state abuse or corporate abuse is pretty irrelevant. You could dismantle the state tomorrow, and the most powerful corporations on the planet would immediately form private militias and hire mercenaries so that they could continue to loot the world of resources and marginalize the bargaining power of labor. And your little selling of stock as a protest would be just as worthless as voting for the lesser of two evils.

Quote :

"We all understand that it's wrong to hit people, that it's wrong to steal from people..."

Except we don't agree on that. Because, by your very own admission on this very page, you gave a silent nod of approval of community members sabotaging the means of production for a lumber company who was threatening their existence, which, by all legal definitions, would require a form of theft and or destruction of "property."


Quit tying your moral compass to the conceit of property. Can't be done, yo.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 4:18:40 PM

Quote :

"and the logging company can simple hire or start a private military or police force to protect their transactions, power through violence (or threat of) of which you think only the government is capable basically, you still haven't made a case for how to protect the voice of the weak individual or the collective minority without a government"

Ah, yes. That sounds like a good business model. Start your own military (absurdly expensive to create or maintain) so you can secure resources, then pray that no one has insurance or their own military/security firms for this kind of thing that would wipe you out, probably kill everyone involved, and then take those resources for themselves to recoup the costs.

War is the absolute worst way to resolve a dispute. Governments can do it because they have a lot of revenue from taxes, a lot of people willing to do the fighting for them, they have no competition in the area, and they can run perpetual debts. Companies have to make a profit. Standing armies are expensive and cut into your bottom line. That's not even taking account the existential risk that some other army will come along and crush you, or the PR debacle and decline sales from the news that Bob's Logging Company just flattened some town.

And, again (you didn't respond to this when I said it before), the voice of the weak individual is not heard in the current system. They get one vote for a representative, and that representative gets a single vote a much larger body. Their opinions are not heard or acted upon in any meaningful way.

Quote :

"Except we don't agree on that. Because, by your very own admission on this very page, you gave a silent nod of approval of community members sabotaging the means of production for a lumber company who was threatening their existence, which, by all legal definitions, would require a form of theft and or destruction of "property.""

I don't consider it legitimate property in this example. I can't just walk into your house, walk out with your TV, put it in my house, and call it my property. You did the work necessary to get the TV. I just stole it. In the previous example, the forest was in use, and the lumber company rolls up and decides it wants to set up shop, with no consideration for those that might be using it.

Every single person that allegedly rejects the concept of property contradicts themselves at every step. If you built a house and I burned it down, you'd be pissed. If you opened a restaurant and I burned it down, you'd be pissed. Why? You shouldn't be angry. There is no property. It belonged to the collective, and I, as a member of the collective, made the decision to destroy it. Individual rights = collective rights, remember? It cuts both ways.

Socialism draws this arbitrary, completely nonsensical line between "possessions" and "means of production", but it really all falls under the umbrella of property. I have never seen any socialist actually make a clear distinction between the two or a compelling argument for why property is theft.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 4:20:28 PM

Yeah, because the PR nightmare of sweatshop labor really put a hurtin' for the bottom line of NIKE.


Why didn't those little Vietnamese children just sell their stock to protest?

9/25/2013 4:29:05 PM

I like how you focus on only one of many examples I listed. Selling stock is just an option; the purpose of that example was to illustrate choice. If you own stock, you can sell it. With the state, there are no choices, only leaving, jail, death, or extortion.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 4:31:46 PM

corporations would conglomerate, they would expand both vertically and horizontally until it was economically viable and necessary to have their own military or police force. this isn't fantasy, this is history... and fairly recent history.

your logging company would be owned by modern Astors, or Carnegies, or Rockefellers, they would hire modern private military and police forces that would make the Pinkertons look like saints. they would even go to war if that's what it took to secure resources, we've seen all of this before (United Fruit Co., Pinkerton Detective Agency, etc...)

what would stop them in the absence of an elected government?

now the obvious response is to say, "corporations and the government are the same thing, with the same privileged people playing whatever side works the best at the time." and that is absolutely true, but you are criticizing people for trying to fix electoral politics even though its the only option where there is a chance of having a voice.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2013 4:32:36 PM

Quote :

"I don't consider it legitimate property in this example. "

Of course you don't. You can't. Because if you did, you'd have to admit that your ideology isn't as pure as you think it is. You made the distinction to suit your argument. Another person would argue differently.


That's the whole point. The mere existence of the conflict of terminology demonstrates that "property" is merely a conceit that is often exploited by the powerful to retain their influence and status. The fact that you have to twist and contort your reasoning every time this simple example (or one similar to it) is brought out is evidence that you simply cannot speak in moral absolutes while using contrived notions like "property" to defend your position.

9/25/2013 4:33:10 PM

Quote :

"corporations would conglomerate, they would expand both vertically and horizontally until it was economically viable and necessary to have their own military or police force. this isn't fantasy, this is history... and fairly recent history. "

Perfect, I was waiting for this. Please, provide a brief description of private military firms, where they operated, and who funded them.

Quote :

"That's the whole point. The mere existence of the conflict of terminology demonstrates that "property" is merely a conceit that is often exploited by the powerful to retain their influence and status. The fact that you have to twist and contort your reasoning every time this simple example (or one similar to it) is brought out is evidence that you simply cannot speak in moral absolutes while using contrived notions like "property" to defend your position."

Why would you be mad if I burned down your house?

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 4:33:59 PM

9/25/2013 4:36:04 PM

9/25/2013 4:36:41 PM

Quote :

"Why would you be mad if I burned down your house?"

Of course I'd be mad, but I'm not the one who's entire political and moral ideology is formed around the notion of property, so I don't need to validate it's existence. You do.

9/25/2013 4:39:05 PM

How many deaths were they responsible for? A dozen?

This is the "devil we know" bullshit I'm talking about. There are no private holocausts. There are no profit Hiroshimas or Nagasakis. There are no private gulags.

Take the top 10 atrocities of the 20th century. Were any committed by private companies?

Quote :

"Of course I'd be mad, but I'm not the one who's entire political and moral ideology is formed around the notion of property, so I don't need to validate it's existence. You do."

No, I asked why you would be mad. I know that you'd be mad, anyone would be. But there's a reason for that emotion, and it's why property is an absolute requirement in human civilization.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 4:39:18 PM

9/25/2013 4:39:58 PM

^ If those children in the West Virginia coal mines didn't want to get shot by the Pinkerton's, they could have just sold their stock! Or complained on the internet! Or refused to shop in the company store! Or maybe they could have started a PR campaign highlighting their poor wages!




I never denied the existence of property, champ. I'm just saying that you can't call it absolute, and then twist and turn its very definition whenever it doesn't suit your argument (which is exactly what you did in the lumber company example).

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 4:40:37 PM

so your point, now, is that being a slave to corporatism is better than being a slave to electoral politics because the scale of conflicts would be smaller?

but what would stop corporations from growing? why would the scale of conflict never get that big? some private companies today already have cash reserves larger than the government. what's to stop them from colonizing, and setting up cities to grow customers? we've seen all of this before, its not theoretical.

9/25/2013 4:43:00 PM

Where have I called it absolute? I have a pretty nuanced opinion on property. I don't think everything can be owned.

Quote :

"so your point, now, is that being a slave to corporatism is better than being a slave to electoral politics because the scale of conflicts would be smaller? but what would stop corporations from growing? why would the scale of conflict never get that big? some private companies today already have cash reserves larger than the government. what's to stop them from colonizing, and setting up cities to grow customers? we've seen all of this before, its not theoretical."

I don't think that we would be slaves. Corporations are a creation of the state. Industry does tend to grow and consolidate, but it's also constantly being undermined by new market players and competition. The rise and fall of major, powerful companies, even in our system (which I argue is not a "free" market), is evidence enough that no company is too big to fail. Unless, of course, the government says it is.

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 4:44:00 PM

Your definition is only nuanced when you get stuck in a corner. You never seem to acknowledge the grey areas. And I just used the lumber company example because it was easy. You could easily parse down those conflicts to a smaller scale where your "nuance" would really be tested and exposed for inconsistencies. And what you refuse to acknowledge is that your nuanced opinion would most certainly not align with opinions of others. And in your stateless society, there would be no meaningful way to resolve these conflicts, because might would most certainly make right.

9/25/2013 4:52:21 PM

There is grey area (water, natural, unrefined resources, air, etc), but there's also plenty of black and white. The fact that there are areas where we don't all agree doesn't mean that property isn't worth respecting or thinking of as legitimate.

Where is this all leading? Property isn't black and white, therefore "the collective" should be able to murder you if you don't give up what is asked from you? Or, there is grey area, so let's have a single government with a single set of laws and all the weapons that will arbitrarily give us a definition, rather than multiple, competing arbitration/conflict resolution organizations?

Does anyone want to challenge the assertion that sociopaths are drawn to government in higher numbers relative to private industry? If the idea of ultimate, world-ending power makes you giddy, are you going to shoot for President of the United States or CEO of Burger King?

9/25/2013 5:05:54 PM

in a stateless society i'd shoot for CEO of the large multi-"national" conglomerate corporation that owned that owned Burger King and the cities they were built in, where burgers were bought with scrips that we used to "pay" the people who lived in our cities

9/25/2013 5:30:19 PM