Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism: Contradicting terms?
Benoit @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:21 am
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
As long as owners of natural resources or of means of production cannot guarantee that not only the last transfer of ownership rights but most importantly the very first appropriation was not carried out by an army, libertarianism remain without merit.
http://web.missouri.edu/~umcasklinechai ... iation.doc
http://web.missouri.edu/~umcasklinechai ... iation.doc
Well, "an army" that's very specific. I assume you mean a "foreign" one. (Although were you not just saying elsewhere that the idea of sovereignty is selfish.) Otherwise, you do realize that the government spends ~37% of the GDP every year. 37% taken by threat of force. Until that sort of appropriation stops, statism remains entirely without merit.
The motivations of armed forces, even if they happen to discover a territory never occupied by humans, are not compatible with libertarianism.
faile @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:19 pm
Benoit Benoit:
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
As long as owners of natural resources or of means of production cannot guarantee that not only the last transfer of ownership rights but most importantly the very first appropriation was not carried out by an army, libertarianism remain without merit.
http://web.missouri.edu/~umcasklinechai ... iation.doc
http://web.missouri.edu/~umcasklinechai ... iation.doc
Well, "an army" that's very specific. I assume you mean a "foreign" one. (Although were you not just saying elsewhere that the idea of sovereignty is selfish.) Otherwise, you do realize that the government spends ~37% of the GDP every year. 37% taken by threat of force. Until that sort of appropriation stops, statism remains entirely without merit.
The motivations of armed forces, even if they happen to discover a territory never occupied by humans, are not compatible with libertarianism.
That is true, with the exception of a strictly defensive force.
Benoit @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:33 pm
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
The motivations of armed forces, even if they happen to discover a territory never occupied by humans, are not compatible with libertarianism.
That is true, with the exception of a strictly defensive force.
- To legitimately defend a territory, you have to be its rightful owner first.
- If libertarianism rouses paranoia, spending for defense will never seem large enough.
faile @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:45 am
Benoit Benoit:
- To legitimately defend a territory, you have to be its rightful owner first.
- If libertarianism rouses paranoia, spending for defense will never seem large enough.
- If libertarianism rouses paranoia, spending for defense will never seem large enough.
We don't imprison the descendants of a murderer, despite the lack of a statute of limitations for the crime. We do, however, have a statute of limitations on most property claims for very good reasons.
Benoit @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:25 pm
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
- To legitimately defend a territory, you have to be its rightful owner first.
- If libertarianism rouses paranoia, spending for defense will never seem large enough.
- If libertarianism rouses paranoia, spending for defense will never seem large enough.
We don't imprison the descendants of a murderer, despite the lack of a statute of limitations for the crime. We do, however, have a statute of limitations on most property claims for very good reasons.
Good reasons are reasons acceptable by all concerned parties after deliberating from a position where they are impartial.
faile @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:54 pm
Benoit Benoit:
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
- To legitimately defend a territory, you have to be its rightful owner first.
- If libertarianism rouses paranoia, spending for defense will never seem large enough.
- If libertarianism rouses paranoia, spending for defense will never seem large enough.
We don't imprison the descendants of a murderer, despite the lack of a statute of limitations for the crime. We do, however, have a statute of limitations on most property claims for very good reasons.
Good reasons are reasons acceptable by all concerned parties after deliberating from a position where they are impartial.
A position neither you or I can honestly say we are deliberating from, I suspect. Although, I don't own any property save for what I've earned, nor do I believe anything is 'owed' to me by anyone, so I don't know how much more impartial I can be.
I supposed my bias is that I feel I've earned what I do have, and I object to the idea that I have no title to those things because they were procured from those whom you believe to be thieves.
Benoit @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:07 pm
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
Good reasons are reasons acceptable by all concerned parties after deliberating from a position where they are impartial.
A position neither you or I can honestly say we are deliberating from, I suspect. Although, I don't own any property save for what I've earned, nor do I believe anything is 'owed' to me by anyone, so I don't know how much more impartial I can be.
I supposed my bias is that I feel I've earned what I do have, and I object to the idea that I have no title to those things because they were procured from those whom you believe to be thieves.
- A belief that nothing is 'owed' to you by anyone can be acquired after being nurture by a tyrant.
- A feeling to deserve something has to be objectified by correlations between your sacrifices and those of others.
- A good that has been find out of brute luck has, for some fairness considerations, to be treated like a stolen good.
http://lgst.wharton.upenn.edu/sandbu/Do ... workin.pdf
faile @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:44 pm
Benoit Benoit:
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
Good reasons are reasons acceptable by all concerned parties after deliberating from a position where they are impartial.
A position neither you or I can honestly say we are deliberating from, I suspect. Although, I don't own any property save for what I've earned, nor do I believe anything is 'owed' to me by anyone, so I don't know how much more impartial I can be.
I supposed my bias is that I feel I've earned what I do have, and I object to the idea that I have no title to those things because they were procured from those whom you believe to be thieves.
- A belief that nothing is 'owed' to you by anyone can be acquired after being nurture by a tyrant.
- A feeling to deserve something has to be objectified by correlations between your sacrifices and those of others.
- A good that has been find out of brute luck has, for some fairness considerations, to be treated like a stolen good.
http://lgst.wharton.upenn.edu/sandbu/Do ... workin.pdf
So you agree with me then. Good.
Zipperfish @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:15 am
Yes I think the general consensus is that I am right and everybody else is wrong.
Benoit @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:48 am
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
faile faile:
A position neither you or I can honestly say we are deliberating from, I suspect. Although, I don't own any property save for what I've earned, nor do I believe anything is 'owed' to me by anyone, so I don't know how much more impartial I can be.
I supposed my bias is that I feel I've earned what I do have, and I object to the idea that I have no title to those things because they were procured from those whom you believe to be thieves.
I supposed my bias is that I feel I've earned what I do have, and I object to the idea that I have no title to those things because they were procured from those whom you believe to be thieves.
- A belief that nothing is 'owed' to you by anyone can be acquired after being nurture by a tyrant.
- A feeling to deserve something has to be objectified by correlations between your sacrifices and those of others.
- A good that has been find out of brute luck has, for some fairness considerations, to be treated like a stolen good.
http://lgst.wharton.upenn.edu/sandbu/Do ... workin.pdf
So you agree with me then. Good.
Next time, try your best to answer.
faile @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:32 am
Benoit Benoit:
Next time, try your best to answer.
Next time try tour best to have a point rather than some sort of non sequitur you seem to think supports your position.
Benoit @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:14 pm
faile faile:
Benoit Benoit:
Next time, try your best to answer.
Next time try tour best to have a point rather than some sort of non sequitur you seem to think supports your position.
Be logical then: fail to agree.