In America Them that got gets, the rest pay taxes

[blackice]

no reason a group of poor people can't come together and form their own private bank.

Right

as a result of poor people acting immorally and resorting to theft.

Or is it the rich have acted immorally and resoted to theft?
You assume all poor people act this way that is wrong, stereotyping and promoting hate and misinformation about one class of society.

[David Floyd]

blackice,

If my grandfather robbed your grandfather of his land would you still take the possition that I am entitled to the land not you?

As long as you were not complicit in the robbery, and as long as my grandfather is not currently alive to reclaim his land, I see no reason why I have a better claim on it than you. The "sins of the fathers" should not pass down the generation, in my opinion.

Ramo,

Well, the general elements of capitalism were there (i.e. those societies were what most capitalists would consider capitalist). Under a libertarian capitalist definition, capitalism may not have existed there (and in fact, never existed except in socialist societies), but that's why I put the word in quotes.

Well, OK. And in the Soviet Union, and elsewhere, there were general elements of socialism and communism, and these nations were generally considered to be communist. Doesn't mean they really were under the true definition of the word, though. Same thing here.

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the libertarian concept of absolute property rights is faulty, and the moral situation is much more ambiguous than y'all make it out to be.

No, I certainly admit that most land that people own now - well, really almost all land - has been stolen from someone else somewhere along the line. In fact, it's probably been stolen multiple times from various different people. And if someone who is currently living has had their land stolen from them, then of course they should get it back. But if we're 6 generations down the line, it's certainly not a given that the descendant of the guy the land was stolen on has any better claim on the land than the guy who currently owns it, because quite simply, neither of them had anything to do with the theft, and were not even alive at the time.

The only proposition I'm making is that in certain circumstances (namely in those where such action would reduce coercion), it is perfectly just for workers to seize the means of production through force.

I'm curious as to why you think the wage-labor system (to which you seem to be referring) involves coercion at all. It's based on a totally voluntary system of contracts, which people enter into because they realize it is in their best interest to do so (the self sufficient farm with no modern amenities example I brought up earlier).
Further, I actually see no problem with a group of workers seizing, say, a factory, IF AND ONLY IF they are returning it to the original owner. But if they're just using the justification that the wage labor system is coercive and is stealing their labor, that is no justification at all, because they voluntarily agreed to the contract and can voluntarily withdraw from it whenever they want.

[David Floyd]

Or is it the rich have acted immorally and resoted to theft?

Sure, rich people act immorally and steal things too. But again, we were talking about the welfare system, about poor people forcibly taking money that belongs to others.

[blackice]

The "sins of the fathers" should not pass down the generation, in my opinion.

I did not say that but for the record I am with you on this point 100%

we were talking about the welfare system, about poor people forcibly taking money that belongs to others.

Odd way to say the government feels it is in the best interest of the nation to help it's own people. Poor people do notforcibly take anything that is a silly thing to say. I get visions of these people in need of food with guns holding up the federal reserve.
The governement sees the reason for this as it is obvious I just cn't figure out why you don't?

Now if a welfare person pays rent they pay taxes, food they pay taxes the list goes on so while you "claim" it is someone elses money it is thiers too. Some of these people have paid all thier life now they need a hand great let's do it.

[Ramo]

Doesn't mean they really were under the true definition of the word, though. Same thing here.

I would say that the Soviet Union was socialist and communist. That's what they called themselves, so new definitions of these terms were added. This is how the world works; one can't argue that a definition doesn't exist when millions of people do.

When I wrote capitalism, I was using a different definition from what libertarian capitalists usually use.

And if someone who is currently living has had their land stolen from them, then of course they should get it back. But if we're 6 generations down the line, it's certainly not a given that the descendant of the guy the land was stolen on has any better claim on the land than the guy who currently owns it, because quite simply, neither of them had anything to do with the theft, and were not even alive at the time.

I'm wondering what the justification of this is, in terms of libertarian philosophy.

Was it immoral when the Habsburgs or the Bourbons, etc. had "their" land taken away from them? After all, they owned it for centuries.

I'm curious as to why you think the wage-labor system (to which you seem to be referring) involves coercion at all. It's based on a totally voluntary system of contracts, which people enter into because they realize it is in their best interest to do so (the self sufficient farm with no modern amenities example I brought up earlier).

That's only true if you assume a priori that their employers have moral rights to the property they control. You can use similar logic in statist (for instance, social democratic) societies and say that because the state (rather than corporations) "owns" all property in these countries, they have the justification to extract whatever rents, etc. they want from the people living there, so they are totally voluntary societies.

[GePap]

The most interesting thing about Libertarianism is that it can only work in a world of perfect cooperation: everyone would have to agree to follow the rules and never be bad and never cheat, and only under such a system could Libertarianism flourish. The sesond anyone cheats, the whole system collapses.

I always find it intersting that one never hears about Libertarians from dirt poor states... only from relatively well off crowds.

One thing both communists and Libertarians share is a view of people as economic animals, simply interested in their standard of living and that of their children. In reality people are political animals, using wealth as a means of stability (most people) or power. Because of that, neither the Libertarians or the Communists will get what they want, so Che and David Floyd: tough luck

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Now, show me that the land I currently live on was stolen from a living person, and I'll be happy to vacate.

So if I take all your stuff and I kill you, I get to keep it?

[Garth Vader]

So if I take all your stuff and I kill you, I get to keep it?

No, the tax funded police would put you into a tax funded jail

But David doesn't support taxes... So I guess his answer is that you would be a immoral person for doing that

[Traianvs]

floyd, you're having a solo war against everyone else here, why don't you just give up and admit you're wrong here

[Adalbertus]

To the original post:
The devil s***s on the big heap.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It also includes capital, as rents on stolen land as well as the profits from stolen labor are converted into capital. There's no way around the original sin of capitalism.

Jeez, Chegitz, this can be said of any economic system. Kind of ironic that you mention it, since communist governments have made a living off of expropriating capital and then running it into the ground by not investing. No wonder their economies eventually tank. But then again, since communists don't believe in religion, they must have no concept of original sin.

[Velociryx]

I'm all for people taking personal responsibility.

I'm all for self-sufficiency.

In these regards, David Floyd and I have numerous things in common.

Where we differ is this:

Sometimes, stuff just simply needs to get fixed. Doesn't matter how, doesn't matter by whom, it just simply needs fixing.

The David Floyd's of the world would be very quick to get out of the way in those cases, muttering a quick "well, it's not MY fault such-and-so happened."

Good for you. It wasn't your fault.

But the problem remains nonetheless, and still needs fixing.

And yes, should the day ever come that you find yourself in need, it'll be people like me who will ride to your rescue and lend a helping hand, because if I see an injustice....if I see some sort of problem that needs fixing, my first, gut reaction is to fix it.

We are, at our biological core, social creatures. Hunting apes. We can dress it up any way we like, but that is the final, bedrock truth of it.

And as social creatures, we are responsible for each other.

All of us.

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

Ramo,

Was it immoral when the Habsburgs or the Bourbons, etc. had "their" land taken away from them? After all, they owned it for centuries.

Well, first of all, the Habsburgs and Bourbons were a bunch of absolutist monarchs, who murdered thousands of people either directly or through their numerous wars. Overthrowing those kinds of people is never a problem. If you either kill these people or throw them in prison for life, then no, I see little problem in appropriating their land, because they can no longer use it.

But, if they had done nothing particularly wrong, and a bunch of peasants woke up one day and decided they wanted some land, THAT would have been immoral.

That's only true if you assume a priori that their employers have moral rights to the property they control. You can use similar logic in statist (for instance, social democratic) societies and say that because the state (rather than corporations) "owns" all property in these countries, they have the justification to extract whatever rents, etc. they want from the people living there, so they are totally voluntary societies.

Yes, a State can own property. Yes, a State can even own all the land property in the nation. But this is only possible if the nation either claimed unclaimed land, or purchased claimed land.
This has little to do with factory owners, who most likely purchased the land the factory is on and built the factory with either their money or that of investors, and then hired workers on a voluntary basis.

GePap,

One thing both communists and Libertarians share is a view of people as economic animals, simply interested in their standard of living and that of their children.

Untrue, in the case of Libertarianism. The right to property is only one aspect of natural rights. The rights to life and liberty are as important.

che,

So if I take all your stuff and I kill you, I get to keep it?

Of course not, you go to prison for life or get executed.

GV,

But David doesn't support taxes... So I guess his answer is that you would be a immoral person for doing that

Don't be ridiculous. There are methods other than taxes for paying for police, such as contributions and user fees. I also rather like the idea of unpaid or low paid voluntary police, who supplement the small regular police force when needed.

Vel,

Your post seems to revolve around the notion that when people have problems, those problems should be solved.
I totally agree.
I am not against charity, church, or family, by any means. These are the primary methods of solving problems. What I oppose are laws FORCING me to give up money to try to solve the problem. No one has a right to a comfortable life - sorry, but it just isn't there. I certainly have a right to my own property, though.

[Velociryx]

DF: The crux of where I'm going with my statement is this. When problems arise, they need resolution. They don't need to be debated, or politicked, or sub-committeed at the next regional meeting, they need fixing. It's as simple as that.

Using your own statements in various places on this thread, I get the distinct impression that you would spend so much time and energy worrying about, and fretting over who's fault it was that there's a problem to begin with, that by the time you actually got around to doing anything about it (assuming, of course, after a careful evalutation of the facts that you had any obligation to act in any case, and after you came to some reckoning about "who's fault" it was), it would be too late to make one whit of difference.

The reason laws exist to tell society what to do in certain situations (feed the poor, heal the sick, etc) is not because we are not capable of coming to those decisions on our own, but rather to prevent debate on the issue. Debate = time, and time costs lives in emergency or problem situations.

A secondary reason such laws exist is that until recently (speaking from an evolutionary standpoint), the human ape has never EVER lived in such a vast society. It's an entirely new phenomenon, requiring entirely new ways of doing things, and in many ways, we're still stumbling around in the dark.

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

Don't be ridiculous. There are methods other than taxes for paying for police, such as contributions and user fees. I also rather like the idea of unpaid or low paid voluntary police, who supplement the small regular police force when needed.

So kind of like a protection racket? If a business doesn't pay it's "user fees" it can expect to get robbed?