I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[Ramo]

How? If freedom does not allow for the act of murder, then a law prohibiting murder does not constrain anyone's freedom. Remember, for a constraint to violate the definition of freedom, it must be a constraint on choice or action. Murder, by definiition, is a constraint, therefore constraining murder is not a constraint on choice or action within the context of freedom.

You're constraining the freedom of the murderer. The murderer obviously is constrained by being in imprisoned/executed/etc. Not much choice there.

Anarchism and libertarianism.

Both have plenty of constraints. If you ignore natural constraints such as gravity, I would be subject to social constraints even in the most optimistic views of these systems. For instance, I'd be constrained from being driven around in a limo.

But it does matter who initiated a constraint, that initiation violates the definition of freedom, removing that constraint restores freedom.

The definition of freedom is lack of constraint. Either initiation or reaction "violates" the definition.

You're removing a constraint, the fact the would-be constrainer dies is a result of their attempt to constrain in the first place. Again, their attempt to murder you has already negated the existence of freedom, your actions merely restore freedom. The two are not the same...

I'm not saying the actions are the same. But I'm nonetheless imposing a major constraint on the attacker.

By equating the constraint of murder with the removal of said constraint.

Again, how did I equate them?

You're changing the issue from murder to assault and what form of reaction is or is not moral.

If I kill someone who punches me in the arm, I'm only doing it to a "constrainer," right? I thought you said imposing constraints on a constrainer isn't really a constraint.

It is illogical to equate murder with self-defense...

Why?

[Ramo]

Putting it another way, if my desire is to enslave you and I place a chain around your ankle. Are you constraining me if you remove the chain?

Yes. You have more choices with a slave than without.

[David Floyd]

Quick post, but Azazel:

prove me wrong.

I already made an argument that the relatives of the former slaves are today benefitting from the existence of slavery, so if your argument is that anyone who benefitted from slavery (or their descendants) owes reparations, then the ex-slaves themselves owe reparations. However, they have no one to pay reparations to, and if they don't have to pay reparations for the benefits they are deriving from the former existence of slavery, then neither should I.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

You're constraining the freedom of the murderer. The murderer obviously is constrained by being in imprisoned/executed/etc. Not much choice there.

And they'd be dead if your self-defense was successful. Their choice was made when they decided to impose a constraint. Freedom does not mean you get to deny others their freedom with impunity... It doesn't even mean you get to deny others their freedom...

Both have plenty of constraints. If you ignore natural constraints such as gravity, I would be subject to social constraints even in the most optimistic views of these systems. For instance, I'd be constrained from being driven around in a limo.

Not only do I ignore "natural constraints", I ignore this notion that laws prohibiting murder are constraints. Why would you be constrained from getting a limo ride? You're resorting to the "murder is an act of freedom" argument again. I can rent a limo if I want a ride, the fact I might have to pay for it is not a constraint any more than having to pay a prostitute for sex is a constraint. Would you argue I should be able to rape women if they don't want to have sex for free? Wouldn't that be a constraint on them? Then it would be a constraint on the limo owner too...

The definition of freedom is lack of constraint. Either initiation or reaction "violates" the definition.

Not when one is a reaction to the other. Again, the removal of a constraint is not the same as the imposition of a constraint, that requires equating murder with self-defense.

From Merriam Webster:

1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another

You can see that liberation from a constraint is also freedom and that the definition does not include nature.

I'm not saying the actions are the same. But I'm nonetheless imposing a major constraint on the attacker.

But you're equating the two actions by claiming both are constraints on freedom.

If I kill someone who punches me in the arm, I'm only doing it to a "constrainer," right? I thought you said imposing constraints on a constrainer isn't really a constraint.

That's correct, but you switched from murder and killing in self-defense to assault and the morality of the level of retaliation.

Why?

Because they are not the same. Why do you ask when you just said yourself you weren't equating the two?

[Ramo]

And they'd be dead if your self-defense was successful. Their choice was made when they decided to impose a constraint.

I took away his life without his consent. That's a constraint.

Freedom does not mean you get to deny others their freedom with impunity... It doesn't even mean you get to deny others their freedom...

What's this about impunity? Freedom is simply lack of constraint. Constraint in action or reaction is not an act of freedom.

Not only do I ignore "natural constraints", I ignore this notion that laws prohibiting murder are constraints. Why would you be constrained from getting a limo ride? You're resorting to the "murder is an act of freedom" argument again. I can rent a limo if I want a ride, the fact I might have to pay for it is not a constraint any more than having to pay a prostitute for sex is a constraint. Would you argue I should be able to rape women if they don't want to have sex for free? Wouldn't that be a constraint on them? Then it would be a constraint on the limo owner too...

Who said anything about rape (or theft)? And not being able to pay for a limo is a constraint, just as not being able to pay for sex is.

Not when one is a reaction to the other.

Why?

Again, the removal of a constraint is not the same as the imposition of a constraint, that requires equating murder with self-defense.

First of all, killing in self-defense isn't simply the removal of a constraint. I may remove a constraint (on my actions), but I'd impose a constraint (on the attacker's actions). Secondly, I'm not saying that they're the same/morally equivalent.

You can see that liberation from a constraint is also freedom and that the definition does not include nature.

Look at the "a" definition. Absence of constraint in choice. Doesn't specify who imposes the constraint.

But you're equating the two actions by claiming both are constraints on freedom.

Bad logic. An orange is a fruit and an apple is a fruit. That doesn't mean an orange is an apple.

That's correct, but you switched from murder and killing in self-defense to assault and the morality of the level of retaliation.

Why should that matter if imposing constraints on a constrainers isn't really a constraint?

Because they are not the same.

That's not a justification.

Why do you ask when you just said yourself you weren't equating the two?

Going on a tangeant. I can't let any unjustified assertion go unquoted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Were the Founders overthrown by socialists within 5 years of the Revolution's success?

You are kidding yourself if you think that early America was a libertarian paradise. Many states had robust governments (especially Massachusetts) that controlled things that libertarians would just hate, such as governmental charters for roads and bridges (and those violating those charters would be dealt with harshly).

Imran, was the holocaust and slavery moral or not?

I already told you. It was moral to them. It may not have been moral to others and they could have taken over and imposed their own morality if they wished. It being moral to those who imposed morality at that time is really all that matters.

Because freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. It does not say, "the absence of coercion or constraint on Joe the slaveholder to enslave others".

The definition of freedom doesn't mention freedom for me, but not for thee.

As Ramo is saying, prohibition on the murder from killing is a constraint upon him. Freedom for the murderer will mean a lack of freedom for his victim. However, that still doesn't diminish the murderer is more free by being allowed to kill.

There can easily be freedom for one, but not the other.

It always amazes me that libertarians, who emphasis the individual, end up talking about society when the discussion of 'freedom' comes up.

Ramo

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Azazel

Libertarians have never been for the redistribution of property. This is just an outright slander.

I never even dreamed of 'accusing' you of such a thing, guys. I did think you believe in liberty, though. If a person has their rights infringed, he deserves compensation, right?

yes

that money that he has the right to, he can pass to his kids, right? QED. those people deserve the compensation.

Sure

Think of it as a loan.

I prefer to think of it as a moral crime in the past. The moral criminals have died and passed away. This is not a civil issue, but a moral one, since slavery was legal. All we can hope to do is learn from our mistakes, or we would be returning land to the native Americans, Europeans would be moving to the Cacausus Mts. and the Canaanites would be given back control of Israel.

Therefore if a person owes another person money, then he'll still have to return it, even if he's dead, to his kids. The same here. and since the government has illegaly taxed those slave-owners,

Illegaly taxed? How do you figure? There wasn't even an income tax until 1913. Further more, even if the governemnt had taxed those slave owners, how would it be determined who today would be guilty of directly benefitiing from such government funds? Would it be the people who had government jobs at the time, ever possessed government jobs since, or what about the people who lived in the north, whwere slavery was made illegal long before, why should they have to pay more? And what about immigrants? My family came from Sicily in the late 1800's, we never owned any slaves. Finally, if black people are memebers of the United States government right now, wouldn't it be kind of silly to tax them to pay themselves?

I think it's only right that it will be the one to repay those debts, as well. The fact that the government is stealing money from you doesn't mean that it doesn't have to repay the other guy.

That is the fallacy of your argument. You are not a libertarian, therefore, your line of thinking cannot be applied to Libertarians as a whole. Even if you were a Libertarain, you view would be in small minority. Sedcondly, you are qualifying the government as a person who deserves rights, and has responsibilities. It is neither. The government of today does not have one single soul in it or working for it that had any thing to do with the repression of slavery. Your logic is flawed, and trying to accuse me of being a hypocrite as a Libertarian is so insanely stupid, I am about to add you to my ignore list, rather than ever be enraged and want to justify such mindless nonsense

I, personally, don't believe in compensations for slavery, btw, but for reason of social cohesiveness, and not 'rights' or 'entitlements'.

And how is that working for ya?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are kidding yourself if you think that early America was a libertarian paradise. Many states had robust governments (especially Massachusetts) that controlled things that libertarians would just hate, such as governmental charters for roads and bridges (and those violating those charters would be dealt with harshly).

Libertarians, as a whole do not hate the public highway system. You will find most of them support the public highway system because it is funded with a gasoline tax, which in essence is very close to a user fee, if not, as I feel it is, a user fee. The more you use it, the more you pay.

As Ramo is saying, prohibition on the murder from killing is a constraint upon him. Freedom for the murderer will mean a lack of freedom for his victim. However, that still doesn't diminish the murderer is more free by being allowed to kill.

There can easily be freedom for one, but not the other.

It always amazes me that libertarians, who emphasis the individual, end up talking about society when the discussion of 'freedom' comes up.

Ramo

Playing dumb as a way to win a debate only does one thing, make you look dumb. You guys already know the Libertarian position on personal and property crimes.

[Az]

You've been proven wrong several times already - reparations are about forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty - that is inconsistent with morality and libertarianism. Claiming that libertarianism is hypocritical or inconsistent based on it's opposition to reparations is illogical.

No. that's not what these reparations are about. It's the government, that has itself stolen the money from the slaveowners, paying the slaveowners' debts to the slaves' descendants. The fact that the government is stealing your money, doesn't mean that the poor slaves' kids are to blame, since it's they're just getting what belongs to them, from the government. don't like the fact that the government is taking your money? blame the government, don't blame the slaves' kids.


The fact that "they're better off" has nothing to do with this, too. They were coerced, and thus deserve reparation, just as you would deserve one, if someone took your money away, even if he'd return you it with interest some time later.

I prefer to think of it as a moral crime in the past. The moral criminals have died and passed away. This is not a civil issue, but a moral one, since slavery was legal. All we can hope to do is learn from our mistakes, or we would be returning land to the native Americans, Europeans would be moving to the Cacausus Mts. and the Canaanites would be given back control of Israel.

I tend to think of it as a salame sandwich. Doesn't make it one. You cannot ignore the financial aspect of it.

Oh and all those things you mentioned: Yeah, sure I don't believe in them. that's why I am not a libertarian. You guys should be all pissed off about property and crap like that. I am not a libertarian, but I fully realize what you people care about, or say that you care about. I am following your logic, people, and your rules.

That is the fallacy of your argument. You are not a libertarian, therefore, your line of thinking cannot be applied to Libertarians as a whole. Even if you were a Libertarain, you view would be in small minority. Sedcondly, you are qualifying the government as a person who deserves rights, and has responsibilities. It is neither. The government of today does not have one single soul in it or working for it that had any thing to do with the repression of slavery.

Doesn't matter, AT ALL. think of a corporation. It is liable for debts, or wrongs it made in the past, even if noone from those times is still alive.

Your logic is flawed, and trying to accuse me of being a hypocrite as a Libertarian is so insanely stupid, I am about to add you to my ignore list, rather than ever be enraged and want to justify such mindless nonsense

[NeOmega]

Whatever. Go find someone else to troll.

[Q Classic]

and of the governments that were in power during the time of reparations, only england has any continuity. the rest have ceased to exist.

so the target of reparations should be the united kingdom, by that logic.

[Q Classic]

as for libertarians...

you guys are all right. wrong, but all right. then again, everybody's wrong, so you're not alone.

[David Floyd]

The fact that "they're better off" has nothing to do with this, too. They were coerced, and thus deserve reparation, just as you would deserve one, if someone took your money away, even if he'd return you it with interest some time later.

No, the "better off" aspect has EVERYTHING to do with it. You see, slavery isn't a simple case of stealing money or land from one person and giving it to someone else. No, slavery involved taking large numbers of people from one place, and forcing them to work in another place. Obviously, this is horribly immoral.

However, do their descendants deserve reparations? More to the point, should I have to pay reparations to these descendants?

Seeing as how the descendants of slaves were NEVER slaves themselves, the only argument you can make is the economic argument - that is, I am still deriving a benefit from the previous existence of slavery. Now, this may or may not be a reasonable argument, but I'm not prepared to get into that because it is ultimately IRRELEVANT.

If the argument for reparations revolves around the fact that I am deriving a benefit from the institution of slavery, then I would have to argue that the desendants of the slaves are ALSO benefitting from the institution of slavery. If there is some economic benefit from slavery, it affects almost everyone, rather than just targetting white people. However, even if that supposed economic benefit targets ONLY white people, the descendants of the slaves are receiving the benefit of living in the United States rather than Africa. Don't think that's a benefit? Go to Africa, then decide.

Because the descendants of the slaves are deriving the benefit of residence and automatic citizenship in the US, upon birth, with all of the advantages that go with that, and because the existence of slavery made it possible for so many of them to be here today, I would argue that these descendants owe reparations just as much as I do, if indeed the problem is derived benefits.

Now, the problem is, who do they pay reparations to? They can't pay the dead, and paying themselves is just silly. There is no one for them to pay. If there is no one for them to pay, then there is no one for me to pay, either. I shouldn't have to pay people who are already deriving a benefit from the existence of slavery, whether they be black or white. That's unjust.

[Al B. Sure!]

Their parents can get loans, and their parents can work more. Obviously.

what the hell? how are you going to cause children to suffer in ignorance because their parents (whom the children have no control over) were idiots who never invested a cent in their child's education?!

[David Floyd]

what the hell? how are you going to cause children to suffer in ignorance because their parents (whom the children have no control over) were idiots who never invested a cent in their child's education?!

I'm not causing anything. Their parents are. Are you telling me that bad parenting decisions are my problem?

Maybe if a kid's parents don't give the kid enough milk, or let him watch R-rated movies, or let him play in the street - maybe those things are my problem as well.

But I think not. Parents are responsible for the education of their children, not me. But if you feel so bad about it, then I encourage you to donate money, and freely help "underpriviliged" (is that the correct euphemism these days?) children.