theyeti

Take your time. FWIW, I would rather we back up and discuss some of the earlier issues I raised, such as natural monopolies and the necessity of government ownership and/or regulation. I think it would be more relevant if we focused on pragmatic issues that intersect with mainstream politics.

theyeti

Marvin

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thomas Ash
[B]Does anyone else see this as a big problem for libertarianism? People's obtaining of these property rights for unproduced property though 'first use' seems completely arbitrary. Rights for produced property may make more sense, but for all non-intellectual property if you trace the history of ownership of components far enough back, it always comes down to big men with clubs taking it through strength.


Thomas

I believe that several pages back I mentioned : Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) 1840-"What is Property?" you know the quote "Property is theft". I've also quoted Chief Seattle but as UT says my posts are incomprehensible.:banghead:

Martin Buber
PS. On conservative.com Those all presumptious libertarians try to claim Proudhon as one of their own.

Edit: Whoops Tom my man quotes to which I referred were in a different thread.

August Spies

You owe me answers, if you wish to discuss on this board instead of just preaching, and you also owe me as everyone else to make clear when you are speaking as a mod or just personal opinion.

Gurdur is right 99, you owe these answers to many a poster here.

Thomas Ash:
it is the 99's view of objective morality that I/we are questioning. The way he describes it (which is very little) is not at all like how objectivy morality is normally described.

Dr. Retard

I think you have two criticisms here:

(1) On libertarianism, ownership becomes arbitrary. You suggest that, if property rights are grounded in 'production' (like Lockean 'labour-mixing', I guess), then they seem well-deserved. In contrast, on the 'first-use' grounding I'm describing, they don't seem well-deserved -- they seem arbitrary. I think this is right, but I don't think much follows. The fact that I possess two healthy kidneys is not due to any admirable effort on my part; I just got lucky. But presumably my kidneys aren't up for grabs -- they're mine, not because I earned them, but just because taking them from me would violate my rights. Just because ownership is arbitrary doesn't make it OK to take away the resources in question. (Nozick presses this point against Rawls.)

(2) On libertarianism, ownership is only legitimate if it has a non-aggressive chain of transfers behind it; and, of course, in the real world, almost everyone's ownership is 'tainted' by past aggression. This is an interesting point that deserves to be addressed by libertarians. For just these sorts of reasons, Nozick entertains the idea that affirmative action and the like could be justified on libertarianism, as remuneration for past aggression.

I think everything turns on (i) when and how punishment is to take place, and specifically (ii) how to deal with new resources brought into existence by an owner working with 'tainted' property. Regarding (i), much of the aggression took place in the far past; the victims are dead. So it's not clear that anything needs to be done (not to suggest further that clearly nothing need be done). As theories of punishment differ, so will responses to this sort of issue. Regarding (ii), many resources claimed as private property are created by their owners; surely, such resources ought to be theirs; but then again, they're creating them with the help of 'tainted' property; so maybe not. I think this issue serves as a reminder that you can't justify current resource-holdings by mere appeal to the core principles of libertarianism; you need to supplement these principles with principles of punishment; only then can you appraise the justification of current resource-holdings.

Autonemesis

That is because you believe there have actually existed historical communist or socialist governments. You need to understand that under socialism or communism ownership itself no longer exists. Therefore it is nonsense to talk of a communist or socialist government where the state "owns" the means of production. No one - not even the state - owns anything under socialism. The governments called communist by the West, are actually state-capitalist governments. Where there is ownership, there must be capitalism. Ownership makes no sense in a socialist or communist context.

There has never been a socialist or communist government in the modern history of the world.

August Spies

99percent:

There is not a single person who studies marx and then stalin/mao who would say the two have the same beliefs. Lenin himeslf said russia needed to be state capitalist BEFORE it could go communist.

Just think of it this way. the United States is not a democracy. It has never pretended to be one. However, it uses the term democracy (and obviously we have the "democrats") to describe itself. This is just political rhetoric. It doesnt' mean my saying "American democracy is not democratic" is a contradiction.

The sad fact is modern society has totaly obscured the meanings of these words. Very orwellian like.

boneyard bill

Wow, a debate on the intellectual merits of Ayn Rand or Noam Chomsky! Surely there's a better way to spend an afternoon.

Gurdur

The use of the terms "objective morality" and "Objectivism" are political rhetoric that pretends to be a pseudo-scientific stance.
It's very like dogmatic Marxist-Leninist Dialectics in that regard.

By claiming their morality is "objective", Objectivists wish to deny the very existence as well as the validity of other moral systems.

Difficulty No.# 1

Together with their other claims; they simply cannot explain why the great, great majority of humans do not accept their so-called "objective morality".
This difficulty is outlined in excrutiating detail on this thread here.

Difficulty No.# 2
They simply cannot logically prove their morality is objective; it simply is a bundle of subjectively arbitrarily-chosen premises.

Difficulty No.# 3
Since the majority of humans simply do not acept their "objective morality", Objectivists are often reduced to impotently railing against democracy - as some posts on this board show.

IOW, Objectivism is a recipe for social authoritarianism, where a minority wishes to impose its view upon the rest.

Difficulty No.# 4
Objectivism is anti-science; it posits a Creationist-like gulf between humans and animals in contempt of the biological evolutionary continuum (discussed a bit here).


I'll upgrade and add to this list as we go along.

99Percent

No, it doesn't claim to be scientific at all. There is a big difference between pure logic and the empiricism of science and reason itself. Objective morality is derived from reason not science, and it must be individually learned and reasoned out. Not dictated.
Again, argumentum ad populum. That you do not want to see it is another matter. I will get back to that thread shortly.
Again, you are confusing pure logic with reason. They are not the same.
This is a contradiction in terms. Reason cannot be imposed upon others. It must come from your own free will to choose to think for yourself.
Nonsense. Objectivism doesn't discard science or is anti-science. Its a philosophical stance that goes above science in the scheme of knowledge.

Gurdur, must you spam the board with the same baseless arguments over and over again? Seems like a desperate attempt to be heard. Reminds me of the signature I want to use here: "The weaker the argument, the stronger the voice." - Mr. Lucky.

99Percent

Kind Bud

Well theoretically the means of production in a socialists or communist states are owned by everyone. This means that economic policies are completely determined through the democratic vote. Production and the economy are centrally planned.

Capitalism is actually the ownership of property by private individuals, where the individual (or group of individuals) are free to decide what to do with their property even if contrary to the wishes of the general political population.

Crony capitalism which is what is rampant right now in emerging new "capitalist" societies such as Russia, is the giving of special favors by the state to particular individuals who have connections to those in power. It happened a lot in Mexico with the PRI and still does but has diminished somewhat. Fascism would be the worst kind of "capitalism" because its crony capitalism accepted by the state itself. But these are all examples of corrupted forms of capitalism. Then there is also mercantilism also confused with capitalism, where the government imposes special tarrifs or tax exemptions to special groups in the economy.

Libertarianism advocates laissez faire capitalism, which means the total or at least the minimal forms of government intervention in the free economic affairs of men. This includes of course not granting special favors, properties, tax exemptions, corporate or farm subsidies, etc, among many other ways.