Tab Content
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:28 PM
    If you think about it, it makes perfect sense that gun control would come under a GOP administration. The GOP base would go absolutely ballistic (perhaps literally) if a Democrat did it, because they'd be suspicious of the motive. Whereas, if a GOPer does it, they're more inclined to rationalize it away as some kind of necessary evil, as FOX is doing now. It may be that nothing happens, but we're closer now than we've been in years, IMO.
    16 replies | 288 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 05:48 PM
    I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya..
    8 replies | 209 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 12:38 PM
    So you assert, but that's not true, as I just explained: Your "territory" is simply a bundle of individual property rights appropriated by the group. None of them were unowned, none of them can have been homesteaded. That you bundle them together and give them a new name doesn't change that. If you want to claim that the group has these rights, so be it, just don't claim that they homesteaded them in a manner consistent with liberal theory; they clearly did not.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 01:06 AM
    The underlined is a euphemism for more concrete rights: like the right to my money. I most certainly had that right. If the group gained it, I lost it. What the group gained was not unowned, and hence can't have been homesteaded. It doesn't matter how you play with the language, this argument simply doesn't work. A communist can refer to the state's ownership of everything as a "right to set national economic output," and deny that the state acquiring this right entailed anyone losing anything (since no individual ever had a "right to set national economic output") but this is sophistry; what is actually going on is an appropriation of private property rights, whatever you call it.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 12:45 AM
    The point is this. The group's alleged rights conflict with my own. When the group acquired "territory" (which includes its right to my money), I lost something (my right to my money). So then this doesn't make sense.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 12:16 AM
    No, that's not what I mean. Can "Smith has the exclusive right to eat the apple" and "Jones has the exclusive right to eat the apple" both be true? Or, more to the point, can "I have the exclusive right to use my money" and "the group has the exclusive right to use my money" both be true? No, it's deeper than that.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:59 PM
    Can rights conflict, as a matter of logic? You've put forth several explanations (e.g. quasi-homesteading, quasi-contract) for how the group acquired it alleged rights. I'm pointing out how those explanations are inconsistent with liberalism.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:44 PM
    Is this a voluntary exchange, like paying dues to a country club one chooses to join? And your theory for how the group comes to homestead "territory" doesn't work, as you just acknowledged. So, again, using whatever language you please to label the rights of the group, how did it acuire those rights?
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:33 PM
    So then, if my money was already owned (by me), it can't have been homesteaded by the group, can it have? In other words, the group appropriates some of the property rights of individuals. The question is: how? Not by homesteading, since one cannot homestead already owned things.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:18 PM
    Gotcha, but the only issue in contention here is immigration policy, so I'll focus on that. Now, prior to the group acquiring this alleged right to my money, was my money unowned? (...not a trick question, the answer is just as obvious as it appears to be...)
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:11 PM
    The "territory" which the group allegedly homesteads is a bundle of rights relaying to immigration policy, correct? e.g. the right to collect taxes for the purpose of financing that policy, correct?
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:48 PM
    I'm not "hand-waving" it away; I'm stating as plainly as humanly possible that your argument is illiberal. Have you ever read any liberal work that touched on the homesteading principle, e.g. any of Rothbard's ethical writings? Have you ever found in any of those works any reference to your idea of a group "homesteading" already owned property? No, of course not, as that's contrary to the whole idea. And, to reiterate, I'm not trying to "disprove" your arguments, to show that they have no basis; I'm only trying to show that they're inconsistent with liberalism, have no basis in liberal theory.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:32 PM
    Your "territorial ownership rights" are simply property rights in the land and/or people: property rights which you've taken from their rightful holders and given to the majority. And why? Simply because the group exists, not because it homesteaded or contracted to obtain these property rights. There is no meaningful difference between what you're advocating and what any democratic socialist advocates, except that you've limited the socialist argument to immigration issues. It is very obviously a way to justify what you know to be an exception to the liberalism which you otherwise advocate.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:25 PM
    Excellent Talking about 'waste, fraud, and abuse' is all well and good, but this is the heart of the matter.
    6 replies | 353 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:20 PM
    Words have meanings. The idea that the majority collectively own things simply in virtue of being the majority is called socialism. The idea that this is immoral on its face and stupid in practice is called liberalism. I'm not asking you to change your position, just to be intellectually honest about it.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:08 PM
    I know, hence you're not a liberal. On this particular issue, you're a socialist.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:01 PM
    No, freedom of association refers to the rights of property owners to control access to their property, either individually or (when collective property is created by contract) collectively: e.g. a restaurateur choosing who to serve or a country club choosing who can join. You're talking about something entirely different and contradictory: an alleged right of the majority to control the property of the minority, simply because they're the majority (not because there was any agreement as with legitimately created collective property).
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 09:48 PM
    Yes, we have different principles: mine liberal, yours otherwise. That is the point I've been trying to impress upon you for 7 pages.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 09:23 PM
    Everything the state does violates people's rights, if for no other reason than that everything the state does requires taxation. Hence, the only justification for anything the state does (indeed, its very existence) is that the action ultimately makes for less aggression (e.g. a little tax better than a lot of anarchy). You could argue that immigration restrictions are justified because they ultimately make for less aggression, and remain within the liberal paradigm, but to argue that such a policy doesn't violate people's rights at all (or, what is the same thing, that the state has some inherent right to do this) is to abandon liberalism altogether, and that's what you've done.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 08:57 PM
    Sure they do, but so what? If the purpose of the state is to minimize aggression, the fact that it does so, and thereby adds value to the area, doesn't change its purpose. In effect, you're saying that the state which does a good job protecting property rights should be rewarded with the right to violate them. ...which makes no sense at all (not from a liberal perspective anyway).
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 08:46 PM
    1-3 are fine. 4-5 are the problem. 3 states the liberal justification of the state (it exists to minimize aggression, and for no other purpose). But then in 4-5 you inexplicably grant it (through a pseudo-homesteading process, not at all like the liberal one) additional rights, to do certain things (like restrict immigration) even when this doesn't serve the purpose of minimizing aggression.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 08:23 PM
    First, the rights which you say the state has are property rights, in either the land or people, or both. All rights are property rights. Second, whatever you call it, there is no explanation for how the state acquired it which is consistent with liberal principles. The only justification for the state consistent with liberalism is the consequentialist one, that I and other minarchists advocate. As soon as you start talking about the state having absolute rights to do thing (not for some greater liberal good, but for whatever reason it pleases), you depart liberalism. You keep equivocating between this pseudo-homesteading theory and the above.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 08:05 PM
    1. Land which is already owned cannot be homesteaded. 2. A homesteading-by-the-state theory logically concludes with justifying anything that any state does, not only your ideal state's actions. No, you don't, for reasons just explained. You think that the state has an absolute right to do certain things, regardless of their consequences.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 07:48 PM
    Once again, just because you express the powers of your proposed state in the language of property rights does not make yours a liberal theory. A communist could just as well say that the communist state is justified in doing what it does because it owns everything; or an Islamist say that the Islamist state is justified in beheading infidels because it has a corresponding property right in their body; etc. Anyone of any ideological persuasion can express his views in terms of property rights; that does not make him a liberal. What defines liberalism is a set of specific rules for how property rights come into being. Your theory of how the state acquired its alleged property rights violates those rules. Ergo, it is not a liberal theory, no more than the communist's or the Islamist's, or any other, regardless of whether it might be clothed in the language of property rights. Only if we accept that the state has these property rights you claim it does, which, on the liberal view, it does not. There's a fundamental difference between how I justify the state and how you justify the state.
    287 replies | 3577 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 07:22 PM
    r3volution 3.0 replied to a thread Stocks: Market Crash Looming in Economy & Markets
    I'm not much inclined to those explanations, but yea, this was suspicious. A rally in itself wouldn't have been suspicious, after last week, but this was strangely orderly.
    3017 replies | 373741 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 07:17 PM
    I don't know that Salerno's characterization of Mises' position is altogether correct, but I'll go ahead and address what was said: This was and is a common misconception. Liberalism was born under the Old Regime, well prior to 1789. Nationalism and democracy were (along with socialism) the children of the revolution. The 19th century nationalists and democrats (and also the socialists) merely used the language of liberalism to advance their own causes (e.g. the "liberty" of the nation to govern itself, which has no bearing on the individual liberties valued by liberalism). The practical effect of the rise of nationalism and democracy (and obviously socialism) was to retard and ultimately reverse the progress of liberalism. Consider that modern "liberals" (i.e. socialists who've co-opted the term) also applaud the 19th century nationalists and democrats. Why? Because those 19th century nationalists and democrats really were the progenitors of modern "liberalism," while being the gravediggers of genuine liberalism. I don't recall ever hearing anyone (libertarian or otherwise) deny that nations exist. The issue isn't whether they exist but whether their existence has any moral implications: i.e. whether nations have rights that supersede individual rights. Similarly, that a libertarian rejects Marxist class theory doesn't mean that he denies that classes exist; he denies only that this has the implications that the Marxists claim).
    6 replies | 268 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-15-2018, 11:06 PM
    So, your disinclination to believe the reports about Trump wanting to raise the gas tax is a function of your deference for politicians in general...?
    53 replies | 694 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-15-2018, 10:55 PM
    Of course, the real problem isn't the taxes anyway; it's the spending (that's the true cost, however financed). And there's no denying that he's proposed $200 billion in additional spending on vote-buying boondoggles infrastructure, right?
    53 replies | 694 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-15-2018, 10:46 PM
    Like how he didn't support the invasion of Libya or socialized medicine, right? ..right?
    53 replies | 694 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
12,406
Posts Per Day
8.58
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 06:52 PM
Join Date
03-06-2014
Referrals
0

01-22-2018


01-08-2018


12-30-2017


12-02-2017


09-23-2017


08-27-2017

  • 10:31 AM - Hidden

08-22-2017


08-06-2017


07-31-2017


07-18-2017


07-14-2017


05-27-2017


05-11-2017


11-19-2016

  • 06:12 PM - Hidden

07-25-2016


06-16-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 218 1231151101 ... LastLast

02-19-2018


02-17-2018


02-16-2018



Page 1 of 218 1231151101 ... LastLast