From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Dec 11 2000 - 19:38:18 MST
michael.bast@convergys.com wrote:
>
> As someone else (Hal, I think) pointed out, they could say the same about you.
> One of the libertarian's favorite slogans is "taxation is theft", but the
> counter is "property is theft". Who's right? Depends on your values, actually.
> If you think property rights are the basis of civilization, you'd say the
> former. If you think private property is the basis for hierarchical enslavement
> of the masses, you'd say the latter. By what standard is anything judged? My
> standards aren't accepted by everyone.
Property is theft from whom? You can steal if no one has any ownership
rights. :-)
>
> >Simple. They want to not only make their own mind up but having decided
> >that X is good they would like to force my compliance at gunpoint. I
> >have no intention of forcing them to do anything at all. If we have no
> >logic in common then I guess little more than self-defense of one's
> >person and space or avoidance of one another would be left.
>
> Smart-ass. But, that's meant in a good way, actually.
How so? I expressed the difference in philosophies and the consequences
if people truly have no basic principles or objective reality to fall
back on to reach agreement.
> >Ah, I forgot, there I go again, using logic.
>
> I'd say yes, it does mean someone must sacrifice themselves for this guy.
Why must they? Says who? And are those they say so correct?
> However, you use the word enslave. You are re-defining a common word, and
> attempting to substitute that altered definition into the conversation as though
> it were the original, common meaning. The word slavery (in common usage) does
> NOT denote being required to do some sort of service for others.
Being required to do service for others without pay or compensation or
choice is as close to being enslaved as I want to go. At the least you
would have to admit this is thievery of another's time, energy and
resources.
>This is one of
> the weakest parts of any libertarian arguments, the failure to make an argument
> using commonly accepted definitions.
If you define the above as not enslavement and perfectly ok then it is
not libertarian definitions that should be questioned.
>Of course people think slavery is bad. But
> they also don't think requiring people to 'give back' is slavery. And this is
> where we lose people who could potentially help us.
Give back? This assumes one took something unfairly in the first
place. "Give back" sounds like a justice claim. But by what notions of
justice? This itself is a much more prejudicial and questionable use of
words than what you are calling me (and libertarians generally) on.
>(Before you ask, I
> personally would say he is asking for something to which he has no right, though
> I don't know that I'd consciously call it slavery.)
OK. So if he has no right to it but you are forced by government to
comply anyway then your rights have been violated. Yes?
> >Someone to take care of them? Doesn't that translate to this guy saying he has
> the right to enslave others for his benefit? If >so then why should any decent
> people take such a statement seriously? In fact increased freedom has done
> more to >increase the well-being of all elements of society than any amount of
> chaining the more able to the needs of the less able.
>
> I think the problem is cross purposes. You're arguing against what (I think) you
> think I'm saying, that government is ok, etc. What I'm doing, though, is saying
> there are people who don't agree with you, and they do wield power. I once saw a
> priest make a very strong chain of logic showing that Christ was God. My point?
> If you buy the basic proposition that God exists, all else falls into place.
Sure. By that basic assumption Christ was God. But then so was Krisna
and many others by the same logic. OK. It is a pointless aside.
> Logic by itself is NOT enough, you have to agree on basic points of reality.
> And, largely libertarians are in a minority on what's right and wrong.
Those that have any claim of speaking intelligently about right and
wrong are in an even greater minority.
> We use
> words in ways that others don't (slavery, plunder, etc. ) and then expect them
> to agree with us. They may, for a while, but then they realize we were doing
> something they didn't know, and they not only no longer agree, they think we're
> deceptive, stupid etc. We lose ground. We need to be able to deal with things as
> they are, and move forward.
I don't think this is the case at all. The words above are well used
for the things they are used to describe. They are not arbitrary. That
most people don't use those words for those things is more from not
thinking about the subject much or not seeing the same implications than
anything else. Human conversation and communication isn't about just
reacting to words mindlessly. Of course most people don't fully qualify
as having human conversation much of the time. OK. I am getting
cynical now.
> >You seem to have studiously missed the point. I made a statement about what I
> think is the best that can be achieved and >that historically seems best. You
> claim that I have prejudiced the conversation but you have not shown this. I am
> telling you >what I think and why. If you disagree then show me why instead of
> forbidding me effectively to have an opinion or apply any >criteria at all
> simply because some (or even most) disagree with me.
>
> If I seem like I'm yelling, I apologize, that's not what I meant (even to imply
> it). Can you show that something is really an absolute? To my satisfaction?
All human knowledge is contextual. But that doesn't mean that within a
context one can say nothing at all is certain. Human beings are
creatures with certain basic nature and characteristics. In the context
of human beings there are ways of treating them that are more or less
helpful. I will only argue that libertarian values are more helpful
than most when construing the best ways of humans inter-relating. I
don't need absolutes to make that case.
>>Utterly outside the realm of this conversation.
> Look around you. This is already happening (drug laws, police killings of
> citizens, etc.) What happens, that is how much does the populace care? Not much,
> usually. I live in a city where the police have killed young black men, refused
> to answer questions about what happened, and the people in they city get mad at
> the newspapers for reporting it. (I'm not making this up, I can find the letters
> to the editor.) People aren't always rational, or they don't always fit your
> definition of rational. Still, you get dead, they go on plundering. If we can
> get enough people to accept that this is wrong, it stops. If not, your defensive
> force is meaningless. (I am not arguing against defensive force, just trying to
> make it unnecessary)
Meaningless? In the face of blatant human stupidity like that above it
is essential.
>
> If I didn't think ideas had power, would I be discussing this? No, all power is
> not in the mob, but this is a democracy. People ought to be involved in the
> decisions which affect their lives, and we've got to meet them where they are,
> not demand they meet us on our terms. If we continue to do that, they're not
> going to show up at all.
No real meaningful discussion can start without agreement on terms. But
agreeing when the definitions themselves are contradictions just for the
sake of agreeing is fruitless. Meet them where they are surely. But
don't attempt to meet them in the make-believe land where they think
that they are.
You can try doing even that if you are strong and patient enough. But
when doing such work it is very important that you understand which of
their definitions make sense and which don't.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:19 MST