The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Libertarians Don't Understand Property Rights
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 25th, 2012 12:02 PM Author: hairraiser jewess stage As I understand it, the libertarian philosophy is fundamentally premised on the following notion: "each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply." (See, for example, the retarded Nozick).
The problem with this conception of self-ownership is that when one looks to the realities on the ground, self-ownership manifests itself on through the latent exploitation of the working labor in society: for A to exploit B, B must already be the rightful owner of what is transferred. |
 |
Date: June 25th, 2012 2:24 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part Please give an account of exploitation that doesn't rely on the Labour Theory of Value (Hint: Cohen is smarter than you). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20954796) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:22 PM Author: Titillating idiot den You don't seem to understand anything you dumb piece of shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20958592) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 7:36 AM Author: Boyish rigpig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20960385) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 4:13 PM Author: hairraiser jewess stage lol @ your petty understanding of comparative advantage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20962610) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 8:49 PM Author: Titillating idiot den Sorry I invented a novel idea breh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20964131) |
Date: June 25th, 2012 1:15 PM Author: Bespoke nowag ticket booth The problem with most libertarians is that they don't recognize the government's fundamental role in creating all property rights. There are the obvious situations like IP, which are purely government creations. But without the right to enforce your property rights, we're back to guns and ammo, and the elite Randian supermen are not about to subjugate themselves to the will of the angry masses who will burn their house and rape their women if they failed to get their own private military. The government's institution of the courts and police forces, as well as the government enforcement of laws such as breach of contract, and laws against fraud, create fundamentally useful markets that would not exist absent government intervention. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20954447) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 4:17 PM Author: awkward exciting location nibblets I think this is the better response to the Libertarian view of property rights. OP is focusing on some sort of antiquated Labor theory of value.
Your summary is also supported by recent examples where rich libertarians tried to buy certain pacific islands and declare independence and were quickly "invaded" by the Fiji army who told them to get the fuck out of there. Their claims to the islands vanished in the cool Pacific breeze in the face of the mighty Fiji Military. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:28 PM Author: galvanic orchestra pit lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955861) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:17 PM Author: motley market knife cr.
this is the point i always make in these fucktarded libertariantard wankfests, where someone always claims that all the wealthy people will abscond with their fortunes to some island, if they are ever asked by any gov't to pay tax.
the free market doesn't exist. brute force is the only currency that matters. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:18 PM Author: bronze station crotch Actually, they migrate and move their businesses to tax-friendlier states, like Texas or Singapore. What makes you economically deficient? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956136) |
|
Date: July 12th, 2012 10:53 AM Author: hairraiser jewess stage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#21068188) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 4:21 PM Author: Mustard electric locale elastic band Many libertarians concede that taxation to support those services is legitimate. That's why they're libertarians and not anarchists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955453) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:59 PM Author: Doobsian Insanely Creepy Cruise Ship Potus change many to pretty much all.
the poast you are responding to is a complete misstatement of libertarian ideals. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:07 PM Author: bronze station crotch Are you retarded?
http://www.cato.org/people/nobel-index.html
Tell me, what do you know about them, moron? |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:17 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part Distinguish between conceptual property rights and de facto property rights. I, and many other libs, believe that those rights exist independently of the government.
And I don't see why only the government can only provide those services (why are they some special exemption to capitalism> socialism?). People will pay for protection, law and order and so they WILL exist. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:53 PM Author: Sadistic out-of-control fortuitous meteor office You're right, anarcho-capitalism tends to provide the optimal amounts of all goods, including abstract goods such as safety, and a reasonably fair distribution of those goods. We should constantly bargain with our neighbors for the privilege of not being murdered and looted by them; this society would be pleasant to live in and the deals would be to everyone's benefit:
You - not dead. Guy next door - has more stuff. |
|
Date: July 15th, 2012 11:46 AM Author: hairraiser jewess stage explain the cogency (as you see it) of the Wilt Chamberlain analogy in Anarchy State Utopia
|
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:24 PM Author: Spruce aphrodisiac people who are hurt To be fair,
And the problem with this 'critique' of the Libertarian perspective is that can be invoked to justify every conceivable government policy re: private property - from Soviet/Nazi-style collectivism to quasi-anarcho-libertarianism - in equal measure. It basically boils down to a restatement of "Don't like our policies? Well fuck you, we make the rules so show fealty or else go take a bullet in the head out in the 'natural order'"
So it may or may not be an accurate summation of any given government's stance at any given historical moment from a descriptive perspective, but it is completely unhelpful from a normative perspective because it is totally neutral as between alternative competing policies at best, downright nihilistic as to the possibility for any change in the status quo at worst - and given that history has proven time and again that governments are in a constant process of rising/falling/evolving and will in fact ultimately be responsible to the people who either choose to continue to live under them or overthrow them, this is a pretty superficial and one-dimensional way of looking at the issue.
In other words, you're kind of a wrong dumb faggot (as usual.) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 2:34 PM Author: navy feces the much simpler critique is that even if you grant that people have self-ownership there is just no sound philosophical explanation that leads from that to ownership of anything else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20954841) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 4:09 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part False. IIRC Jan Narveson coherently argues that the Nozickian principle of acquisition (or some version thereof) is implied by SO i.e. the freedom entailed by SO entails the freedom to acquire resources as one's own. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955394) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 4:27 PM Author: frisky brethren LOL that argument has been torn to shreds ten different ways (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955500) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:12 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part Nice articulation of those concerns. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955765) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:28 PM Author: Spruce aphrodisiac people who are hurt To be fair,
No faggot, don't you get it? A pumo told you you are wrong and dumb, so that alone makes you a faggot. Now eat shit and retire because you clearly got pwned. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 9:06 PM Author: hairraiser jewess stage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20957271) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 7:22 PM Author: hairraiser jewess stage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20978965) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 8:35 PM Author: hairraiser jewess stage elaborate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20957108) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 3:15 PM Author: navy feces Haven't read Narveson but I've read ASU and I at least don't see how it got there. The principal of acquisition is, to my mind, wholly unjustified.
The basic idea of property is everyone in the world consenting to not use X without the owner of X's permission. So how can anyone justly acquire anything without the consent of the whole world? Even if you buy the transitive justice argument (which I don't) it's all fundamentally flawed and further irredeemably flawed by the failure to gain the consent of the unborn.
It's just useful way of allocating stuff. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 4:33 PM Author: Mustard electric locale elastic band Back to the OP: Even if this is right, how does this show that libertarians don't *understand* property rights?
One should probably delight in the exploitation of the common labor of retard proles, but I don't see how failing to recognize it even counts as a lack of understanding of property rights. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 4:36 PM Author: Charismatic Dilemma the entire notion of "understanding" something arbitrary and conditional like property rights is absurd, you can only understand property rights in the context of whatever system is adjudicating them, otherwise you're just talking out your ass about how you'd like things to be run, which isn't a function of understanding but of desire (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955540) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:12 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part BULLSHIT. NORMATIVITY HAS BUGGER ALL TO DO WITH DESIRE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955762) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:13 PM Author: Charismatic Dilemma sarcasm? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955770) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:13 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivism#The_Embedding_Problem_.28or.2C_the_Frege.E2.80.93Geach_objection.29 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955776) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:16 PM Author: Charismatic Dilemma a truly bullshit use of logic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955796) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:17 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part Tell that to Frege! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955802) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 5:18 PM Author: Charismatic Dilemma is the dood not dead? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20955805) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:05 PM Author: useless cheese-eating shrine background story (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956049) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:07 PM Author: useless cheese-eating shrine background story (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956064) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:12 PM Author: Charismatic Dilemma it's playing a semantic trick, all they've managed to do is identify an imprecision of the language and assigned it some sort of metaphysical significance (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956095) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:13 PM Author: useless cheese-eating shrine background story (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956104) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:18 PM Author: Charismatic Dilemma explain how noting that a person can make a statement that doesn't contain an assertion actually contradicts the idea that moral language is primarily based on an evaluative attitude, hell, the fucking first paragraph of the aritcle you link to uses the work "primarily"
it is not contradictory to note that to make a certain logical sequence work you must resort to a non-primary use of moral language, that's called being an overly literal dick |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:33 PM Author: useless cheese-eating shrine background story (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956220) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:36 PM Author: Charismatic Dilemma I'm no expert on expressivism, but the basic idea that an "if" statement cannot be squared with the idea that moral statements generally assert an opinion or desire is retarded, for the purpose of that particular logical sequence one must assume that something is "true"
that doesn't mean it is true or that denying it is true is untenable, it means that logic requires assumptions of truth that may or may not actually exist |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:47 PM Author: useless cheese-eating shrine background story (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956288) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:01 PM Author: bronze station crotch you seem like a dumb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956031) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 9:09 PM Author: hairraiser jewess stage elaborate, jackass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20957290) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:03 PM Author: Black ceo libertarians have no real solutions to the rentier accumulation problem, especially since they virulently oppose estate taxes or other forms of intervention against dynastic wealth.
i suspect that a true libertarian society would inevitably end up much like central america during the later spanish empire period, in which you have a few dozen "ruling families" who own almost all of the landbase, with a huge peasant class just trying to keep up on their rent payments. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:04 PM Author: bronze station crotch this is like saying all democrats cling to marxism. you seem retarded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956046) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:10 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part Libertarians can oppose such situations if they arose through and injustice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956083) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 7:21 PM Author: frisky brethren So you oppose all private ownership of land? All of it was taken by force at one time or another (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956522) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:49 PM Author: underhanded vibrant partner wouldn't the land value tax be one such solution? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956295) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 9:08 PM Author: Black ceo that's more of a henry george idea than a traditional libertarian idea, isn't it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20957285) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 3:24 PM Author: underhanded vibrant partner what's a traditional libertarian idea -- something only from locke? don't be so myopic. I have yet to meet a economic-minded libertarian (as opposed to an anarchist) who opposed the LVT as an efficient way to deal with the rentier problem, and by extension liquidity traps (although the latter might be controversial among diehard Kantian libertarians) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20962317) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:08 PM Author: motley market knife the problem with libertarians is that they have a raft of premises and definitions of things - liberty, rights, etc - that are just as easily defined any number of other ways that are antithetical to "libertarianism." yet they don't seem to understand this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956070) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:09 PM Author: bronze station crotch http://www.cato.org/people/nobel-index.html
Tell me, what do you know about them, moron? |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:14 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part How is that an argument against libertarianism any more than the colloquial phrase 'sick' is an argument against its more traditional usage? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956111) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:16 PM Author: bronze station crotch this thread is great: economically illiterate pseudo-intellectual xoxo retards pontificate on economics using the works of philosophers and linguists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956123) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:22 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part Who gives a shit about economics/ what economists think (apart from some psuedo-intellectual banker)? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956154) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:25 PM Author: bronze station crotch oh great. let's use philosophers and linguists to opine on ECONOMICS. they know EVERYTHING (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956170) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:26 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part And when the fuck were we using philosophy to talk about economics c.f. political philosophy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956181) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:27 PM Author: bronze station crotch read above, moron. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956187) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 6:23 PM Author: concupiscible ruby party of the first part My favourite sentence from ASU:
"As correct rules of inference are truth-preserving, and any conclusion deduced via repeated application of such rules from only true premisses is itself true, so the means of transition from one situation to another specified by the principle of justice in transfer are justice-preserving, and any situation actually arising from repeated transitions in accordance with the principle from a just situation is itself just. " |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 7:19 PM Author: underhanded vibrant partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20956502) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 8:39 PM Author: Mahogany indian lodge candlestick maker It's awesome how many threads and posts discussing libertarianism on this bort rely on straw men. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20957126) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 8:40 PM Author: hairraiser jewess stage For example? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20957129) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 9:05 PM Author: dull diverse hissy fit george20, where does your money come from? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20957267) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 4:12 PM Author: underhanded vibrant partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20962600) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 8:22 PM Author: underhanded vibrant partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978984&forum_id=2#20963997) |