Ayn Rand

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Berzerker


There's an oxymoron, a self-made socialist

I did get some subsidies from the gov

[Ramo]

You said that, but why? Why are you as a property holder responsible for the actions of a slave owner from 150 years ago unless your property came directly from your ancestor's investment in slavery?

I thought a proof of a connection was implicit in what I wrote.

Ok, now that we've established that you support certain forms of slavery reparations , is it justified to give Amerindians most of the land in the country? After all, most of it was taken by force. Surely we must give them back their land, right?

I didn't say they expire, I said they become more difficult to trace legal ownership. Once that happens, property rights belong to those in possession of the property regardless of who once owned the property.

Why? Isn't it just as arbitrary for one person to own it as anyone else if was ultimately acquired through your definition of coercion? If a thief steals a trillion dollars from someone and kills off all of his relatives should he deserve to keep it? Why is it any different for descendents of the thief?

More proof than that is needed. You would need to show that the slave owner's descendent actually acquired their wealth from the ancestor and his investment in slavery, many slave owners lost their wealth during the Civil War.

Fair enough.

But what you say you've heard is not what the reparations movement is saying. They aren't suggesting only the descendents of slave owners pay reparations because they know there are too few descendents and not enough wealth they can lay claim to.

But I'm sure that the reparations movement isn't homogenous. I was referring to the people who support the proposal I mentioned.

Yes, and the descendents of slaves can pay reparations to the descendents of people who lost wealth in the effort to free the slaves.

You'll have to explain that one...

Once the acquired slave wealth is isolated from all other wealth building activities people engage in, sure. For example, I believe Aetna once insured slaves, but they also insured people not involved in slavery. All of this would require a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the prohibition on ex post facto legislation and would have to be worded specifically for this situation.

1. I thought you believe that morality isn't bounded by legality?
2. I was referring to things in general, not just slavery. You've got lots of noble families and corporations and so forth that have had its hands pretty damn dirty in the past, even if it's been a long time. Do they deserve to keep their wealth?

The sin was theft which profited the descendents of the thief, that isn't what the reparations movement wants. Trying to take this discussion out of it's context won't work.

Taking the discussion out of its context? This discussion isn't even about slavery reparations. Again, to this:
"Let's say you own billions of dollars. Then I kill you. Then I take the billions of dollars you own. Your kids are left with absolutely nothing and they stay poor, live in a ghetto, etc., etc. I buy the government off so they let me keep all that money. Now, when I die, do my kids have moral rights to those billions of dollars?"
You wrote "Nope."
Then I asked you "Why not? Then you're making people pay for the sins of the dead."

[Berzerker]

Duncan -

I did get some subsidies from the gov

Gee, I guess your Mom gave birth to you on Ted Kennedy's doorstep and walked away.

Ramo -

I thought a proof of a connection was implicit in what I wrote.

You made no mention of any proof for anything, just reparations being required by capitalism and how liberals were being the capitalists, not us "ultra capitalists". When I challenged you on this statement, you switched from liberals and the reparations movement to your modified view of reparations.

Ok, now that we've established that you support certain forms of slavery reparations

I reject any association with the reparations movement because my views are not represented.

is it justified to give Amerindians most of the land in the country? After all, most of it was taken by force. Surely we must give them back their land, right?

Most of the land was uninhabited, but treaties should be honored.

Why? Isn't it just as arbitrary for one person to own it as anyone else if was ultimately acquired through your definition of coercion?

Who knows how it was acquired? That was the point, if a legal line of ownership is unknown, the person in possession is what counts. Now you're trying to change the context again from what I said to include your assumed coercion.

If a thief steals a trillion dollars from someone and kills off all of his relatives should he deserve to keep it? Why is it any different for descendents of the thief?

Why do you assume a thief stole the property in question? You're adding your assumptions to what I said and acting as if you found a contradiction.

But I'm sure that the reparations movement isn't homogenous. I was referring to the people who support the proposal I mentioned.

I don't know of anyone in the reparations movement with your views. They don't take your position because there isn't enough money to bother with, they want the taxpayers to foot whatever bill they come up with.

You'll have to explain that one...

The government allowed slavery, the government forced others to end it. If the descendents of slavery get reparations from the descendents of slaveowners, then the descendents of those who sacrificed to free the slaves should get reparations from the descendents of those they freed. Nasty paradox, huh...

1. I thought you believe that morality isn't bounded by legality?

Doesn't matter what I believe about morality, the Constitution will have to be amended to allow any reparations. If I said it was immoral to arrest pot smokers, the law would still have to be changed before pot smokers were no longer arrested.

2. I was referring to things in general, not just slavery. You've got lots of noble families and corporations and so forth that have had its hands pretty damn dirty in the past, even if it's been a long time. Do they deserve to keep their wealth?

I thought I answered that.

Taking the discussion out of its context?

Yup.

This discussion isn't even about slavery reparations.

Really? Thats news to me.

Again, to this:
"Let's say you own billions of dollars. Then I kill you. Then I take the billions of dollars you own. Your kids are left with absolutely nothing and they stay poor, live in a ghetto, etc., etc. I buy the government off so they let me keep all that money. Now, when I die, do my kids have moral rights to those billions of dollars?" You wrote "Nope." Then I asked you "Why not? Then you're making people pay for the sins of the dead."

And what was the context in which I said it was wrong to force people to pay for the sins of the dead? Reparations for slavery. You then changed the context to your scenario about a thief handing the money he stole to his kids.

[Ramo]

You made no mention of any proof for anything

Yes, that's the meaning of something being implicit. I believed proof was implied in what I said. Which is why I didn't write all blacks, etc.

Most of the land was uninhabited, but treaties should be honored.

Yes, most of the land was uninhabited, but the Amerindians were continually pushed out of their inhabited land to move West. I'm not sure what you mean by treaties being honored.

Who knows how it was acquired? That was the point, if a legal line of ownership is unknown, the person in possession is what counts. Now you're trying to change the context again from what I said to include your assumed coercion.

Just about all land has been acquired through coercion eventually at some point down the line. For nearly all inhabited areas, it's a perfectly good assumption.

Why do you assume a thief stole the property in question? You're adding your assumptions to what I said and acting as if you found a contradiction.

It's a perfectly reasonable assumption for just about everywhere. Other cases are special circumstances. The original sin of capitalism is that it is built upon a system of coercion.

I don't know of anyone in the reparations movement with your views. They don't take your position because there isn't enough money to bother with, they want the taxpayers to foot whatever bill they come up with.

It's not my position. I don't accept capitalist property rights. Regardless of whether or not it's a majority position, I distinctly recall reading about. Probably on Apolyton. I think the thread was about the Aetna situation.

The government allowed slavery, the government forced others to end it. If the descendents of slavery get reparations from the descendents of slaveowners, then the descendents of those who sacrificed to free the slaves should get reparations from the descendents of those they freed. Nasty paradox, huh...

It's not a paradox. The government drafted these people, not the slaves. The slaves didn't control the government. And the government drafted these people to preserve the Union and enforce protectionism, not to free slaves.

I thought I answered that.

Not really. Finding the original property owners would be difficult. Coercion is definite in this situation. So what would you support?

And what was the context in which I said it was wrong to force people to pay for the sins of the dead? Reparations for slavery. You then changed the context to your scenario about a thief handing the money he stole to his kids

This isn't a situation of a person paying for the sins of the dead?

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Yes, that's the meaning of something being implicit. I believed proof was implied in what I said. Which is why I didn't write all blacks, etc.

I can't read your mind about what you implied, but you did say liberals and their reparation movement were being the true capitalists. Liberals pushing reparations make no distinction between the source for these reparations, so there is no implication because you were stating their position.

Yes, most of the land was uninhabited, but the Amerindians were continually pushed out of their inhabited land to move West. I'm not sure what you mean by treaties being honored.

A number of treaties have been ignored by the US government.

Just about all land has been acquired through coercion eventually at some point down the line. For nearly all inhabited areas, it's a perfectly good assumption.

Your assumptions aside, address what I said instead of adding your caveats to argue against. God only knows who coerced whom in many of these cases and who started the process. That's why a legal line of ownership needs to be started when there is doubt.

It's a perfectly reasonable assumption for just about everywhere. Other cases are special circumstances. The original sin of capitalism is that it is built upon a system of coercion.

Capitalism is a recent phenomenon if we exclude the barter system people used for who knows how long. Capitalism was the only moral response to the mess created by all the various forms of dictatorships. Calling capitalism a sin because of all the evil systems that came before it is mis-placing blame and tarnishing that which is moral.

It's not my position.

Then why debate what you don't even believe?

I don't accept capitalist property rights.

So you oppose all reparations? It would help if you stated your position.

Regardless of whether or not it's a majority position, I distinctly recall reading about. Probably on Apolyton. I think the thread was about the Aetna situation.

I've never heard a proponent of reparations say only those who profited from slavery should pay reparations.

It's not a paradox. The government drafted these people, not the slaves. The slaves didn't control the government. And the government drafted these people to preserve the Union and enforce protectionism, not to free slaves.

But the part of the reparations movement you are defending says it doesn't matter if the descendents of slaveowners never enslaved anyone, only that they profited from what their ancestors did. Well, slaves and their descendents profited by the sacrifice of those who ended slavery. You want one group of profiteers to pay reparations but not another group of profiteers.

Not really. Finding the original property owners would be difficult. Coercion is definite in this situation. So what would you support?

I did answer that, when a legal line of ownership can be proven, the original owners and their descendents are the moral owners and the law should reflect that.

This isn't a situation of a person paying for the sins of the dead?

Yours is, but not the reparations movement.

[Saras]

I'll tell you all copy-pasting guys something Beavis said to his teacher in one of the series - "Get a job, hippie"

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Duncan -

Gee, I guess your Mom gave birth to you on Ted Kennedy's doorstep and walked away.

Why, you did'nt get subsidies? Everybody should. You just can't be a dependent on you parents taxes.

Why should my parents have paid all of the cost, when the government gets the benefits too when I pay taxes.

btw, a good part of that was the GI Bill. What do you have to say about that?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

You mean like when I kept responding to your nonsensical claim that a robber has the right under libertarianism to threaten people to get their money only for you to ignore my response and then claim no libertarians here were responding to your question about the robber scenario?

Not really - neither you nor anyone else provided a decent account of coercion in terms of liberty.

So when debating "philosophy", we can't use the dictionary to define words like freedom, coercion and voluntary?

No because philosophical debate is often about the meaning of these words - whether the ordinary meanings assigned to them embody mistakes or contradictions. Since those who write dictionaries are generally not involved in these debates it's bad policy to look to dictionary definitions to solve the argument.

I gave you the definitions of freedom and coercion (of course, using a dictionary breaks your # 1 rule) and I asked you to show me where in the definition of freedom you found negative and positive freedoms and you ignored that too.

Two kinds of freedom have been argued for in the past. Some people think that freedom means non-interference, others think it means both that and the right to be given certain things in order to increase your actual control over what happens to you. Which one is worth having?

Does the male mantis know they will be eaten? Acting out of "selfishness" is not the same as foreseeing the future.

I think his point is that Rand's literal proof isn't true of the whole natural world. I think that your point is sound when applied to mantis' and the like but problematic when applied to humans, because we can predict the future with reasonable accuracy (e.g. I have good reason to believe that I'll live out this day. ). And given that we can plan for the future I think it is just false that we always act to further our own survival. There are plenty of courageous and admirable people that sacrifice themselves for others. Of course if you want to say that they are being irrational then you commit one of the logical leaps that Friedman complains about.

That doesn't mean "selfishness" isn't natural, it only means other instincts are in play.

Indeed so. But the problem is then, which instincts should we follow? There is a tradition as old as Plato that holds the human being to be at war within himself. What Rand needs to show us is some reason why selfishness should override the others - and that's a jump from an "is" to an "ought".

Look I'm not setting out here to get at Rand because of her moral beliefs (although I disagree with her about many of them) but because her argument for them is poor philosophy. I think that the right would be in a stronger position if they dumped her and spent more time reading people like Nozick - because he has better arguments.

While I think that gutter libertarianism of the kind seen on this forum is a silly and naive view, that does not mean that when confronted with a well worked out version of the theory that admits where it it is weak, I think it is impossible for reasonable people to agree to disagree.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Capitalism is a recent phenomenon if we exclude the barter system people used for who knows how long. Capitalism was the only moral response to the mess created by all the various forms of dictatorships. Calling capitalism a sin because of all the evil systems that came before it is mis-placing blame and tarnishing that which is moral.

How was capitalism a moral response to feudalism? I know the Protestants rationalized it, but do you really believe all that. Capitalism is just another exploitive system. The only thing that happened was a new group started competing with the old group to exploit the masses. The workers in the factories weren't any better off than the slaves. In fact, they were probably worse off.

[Ramo]

I can't read your mind about what you implied, but you did say liberals and their reparation movement were being the true capitalists. Liberals pushing reparations make no distinction between the source for these reparations, so there is no implication because you were stating their position.

I'm not sure why you keep harping on this. Proof was implicit through my characterization of the process as enforcing capitalist property rights, and by referencing "most" blacks instead of all of them. In any case, the position that I have explained is the one I'm referring to.

[qutoe]A number of treaties have been ignored by the US government.[/quote]

Right. I wasn't sure where you were going with this. Do you believe current inhabitants should give up their land when they contradict these treaties?

Your assumptions aside, address what I said instead of adding your caveats to argue against. God only knows who coerced whom in many of these cases and who started the process. That's why a legal line of ownership needs to be started when there is doubt.

I already responded to your statement. Again: "Isn't it just as arbitrary for one person to own it as anyone else if was ultimately acquired through your definition of coercion? If a thief steals a trillion dollars from someone and kills off all of his relatives should he deserve to keep it? Why is it any different for descendents of the thief?"

I was simply refuting your assertion that I was bringing in new assumptions.

Capitalism is a recent phenomenon if we exclude the barter system people used for who knows how long. Capitalism was the only moral response to the mess created by all the various forms of dictatorships. Calling capitalism a sin because of all the evil systems that came before it is mis-placing blame and tarnishing that which is moral.

Capitalism has been enforcing originally illegitimate property rights since its beginning. Furthermore, capitalist systems often have great abuses of state power (don't argue that these aren't "real" capitalist systems because otherwise there haven't been any in existence). Why is it moral to base property rights on initially illegitimate claims?

[quote]Then why debate what you don't even believe?[/qutoe]

Reductio ad absurdum.

So you oppose all reparations? It would help if you stated your position.

Yes, I oppose slavery reparations in the US.

I've never heard a proponent of reparations say only those who profited from slavery should pay reparations.

Why should it matter if they profited or not from slavery? The question of inheriting debt is only relevant when they don't own anything after their slaves are freed.

But the part of the reparations movement you are defending says it doesn't matter if the descendents of slaveowners never enslaved anyone, only that they profited from what their ancestors did. Well, slaves and their descendents profited by the sacrifice of those who ended slavery. You want one group of profiteers to pay reparations but not another group of profiteers.

1. I'm not defending any strawman reparation movement. Profit over slavery is irrelevant to the point.
2. What you're asserting about descendents of slaves paying descendents of Union soldiers isn't consistent with capitalist property rights. The reparation movement I was referring to is.

I did answer that, when a legal line of ownership can be proven, the original owners and their descendents are the moral owners and the law should reflect that.

How does legality have to do with anything? Do you mean moral instead of legal?

Yours is, but not the reparations movement.

*Sigh*
Once again, this portion of the post had absolutely nothing to do with the reparations movement. You asserted that paying for the sins of the dead is wrong. Now, in the case of me stealing your billions of dollars, etc., etc., is that not forcing people to pay for the sins of the dead?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Not accepting capitalist ideas on property rights is not the same thing as not accepting any idea of property rights.

What's the distinction?

[Ramo]

Capitalist property rights are intrinsically connected to inheritance and legality. Socialist property rights are connected to, well, socialism - the worker control of he means of production. Specifically, anarchist property rights are connected to minimizing coercion.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Capitalist property rights are intrinsically connected to inheritance and legality. Socialist property rights are connected to, well, socialism - the worker control of he means of production. Specifically, anarchist property rights are connected to minimizing coercion.

How does that relate to your computer? I'm sure it's better than mine.

[Ramo]

That's probably true.

[Berzerker]

Duncan -

Why, you did'nt get subsidies? Everybody should. You just can't be a dependent on you parents taxes.

Why should my parents have paid all of the cost, when the government gets the benefits too when I pay taxes.

You said you got nothing from your parents, so it appears you're changing your story.

btw, a good part of that was the GI Bill. What do you have to say about that?

I don't mind paying people for serving in wars.

How was capitalism a moral response to feudalism? I know the Protestants rationalized it, but do you really believe all that. Capitalism is just another exploitive system. The only thing that happened was a new group started competing with the old group to exploit the masses. The workers in the factories weren't any better off than the slaves. In fact, they were probably worse off.

Strange, that's what some defenders of slavery said, but slaves weren't free to walk away now, were they? As for the rest of that "exploiting the masses", how is socialism any better? You don't think people in socialist systems don't have to perform menial jobs for low pay? I want to hear how socialism doesn't "exploit the masses".