Ayn Rand

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Why do you think there's a liability at all?

The reparations movement is based on liability even though it seeks reparations from a broad range of people and not just the descendents of slaveowners. And what is this liability? That one group of people profited from the coercion of another group; so, the descendents of slaves owe reparations too for the same reason. Why am I repeating myself? Oh yeah, because you can't see the analogy.

Whether or not their descendents did anything is immaterial, and not an appropriate analogy. Liability is due to inheriting the coercion and not due to the profits gained from the coercion.

I can see how a person can inherit money from others who used coercion, but how does one "inherit coercion"?

I again reference analogies involving the slave dirt farmers and stealing a million dollars but investing that money poorly.

If you stole a million and wasted it, how do your children inherit anything from you, much less coercion? If the children inherited no money because it was lost, would you argue the children are criminally and financially liable for inheriting the coercion employed by their Father?

Why? They inherited the wages their ancenstors didn't have to pay for the coercively acquired labor (assuming the estate is large enough). And that's what they'd be liable for.

Geez, Ramo, make up your mind. First you say they didn't inherit profit/wages (they inherited coercion), now you say they are liable for the profit/wages they inherited.

1. I thought you accepted the premise as true. Are you saying that you no longer do?

Just pointing out the problems with collecting reparations if we are to be consistent.

Why?

Because once a legal line is established, theft (which is arbitrary)can no longer alter that line.

And can I say I own the entire world, and would that make that claim permanently legitimate? Since, as I have been saying, there has been a long history of state-sponsored "theft" nearly everywhere.

And how will you determine who owns what without a legal line of ownership? Like you said, you can make any claim you want, but that doesn't mean squat without proof.

What I want or don't want is not important to the argument, as it is simply exposing a philosphical contradiction.

What contradiction? You say most if not all land was stolen in the past, and I say there's nothing we can do about that without a legal (and obviously, moral) line of ownership. And in the absence of such a line, the best we can do is start one.

Why? That's the whole point of making an assumption - I don't have to prove it.

Then it's a meaningless assumption.

I intended to write "Even if the land you own in Kansas was never considered the moral rights of Amerindians.."

So what is your response?

Ok, then imagine that you lived in the Western half.

I don't, but the same standard applies, besides, you're wrong about the Homestead Act, all people had to do was settle the land, not pay for it except with their commitment to live their. This notion that corporations and only the rich grabbed up all or most of the land is false.

Yes it is, when rich speculators get to seize most of the land in the country.

That didn't happen under the Homestead Act.

In 2003, maybe. What about in the late 19th century? I'd bet that there were lots of tenant farmers.

Yeah, right, corporate farms were given most of the land 150 years ago and small family farmers started buying up their land. Oh wait, what's this about tenant farmers? Can you keep this to what we were discussing without shifting to another issue?

Do you know that with any certainty?

Yup, this area was settled long before the Homestead Act.

Sure it does. The moral claim of ownership in a capitalist system is entirely based upon the principle of voluntary exchange since it was first settled. If that wasn't the case, I don't have a legitimate claim to the land in the first place. And it might as well belong to someone else.

Not if the two people who originally fought over the land are long gone and no line of ownership exists. You've added an "if" to my argument...but assuming you paid out of your labor for the land you call home, it might as well NOT belong to someone else. But you can show your sincerity, go out and buy some land and just give it to someone else, and then do it again, and again...

It's not important practically as capitalist property rights aren't important practically.

Then your complaint isn't important practically. So, how would you divy up all the land now given your assumption that most, if not all land, rightfully belongs to people you can't find because the legal line has disappeared?

[Narz]

Wow, this thread still around? Amazing how a post, about an author of a book I've read, at three in the morning would start such a controversy!

By the way, when I hear people on the news talking about putting "the country" before themselves it makes me cringe.

My original intention in this thread (way back when) was merely to state that the philosophy makes logical sense (its not like everyone will follow it anyway so thats a mute point). So many people are programmed into thinking that they as individuals aren't worth anything. I find this very sad. In a way I am glad I had many struggles in my youth and didn't get the acceptance I struggled for. I'm glad of my dissillusionment and glad of all the so-called "traumas" I experienced because when you actually experience these things first hand it opens your eyes (forcefully) to the fallacies that most people take for granted. It gives you a burning desire to know the truth and not take everything at face value. It makes you see the world, your parents, your peers, the so-called authorities in your life for what they are, merely imperfect humans.

I saw a preacher on the news tonight talking about how he hopes God will show George W. Bush his "will" so God's will will become the country's will or some such nonsense. I saw in that preacher a child, a child yearning for an authority figure that is not there. Afraid of life, wanting to believe that someone else, a diety, "out there" was responsible for all things. I suppose its comforting.

Still, I'd rather be alone and searching for the truth rather than with a bunch of comrades or churchgoers comfortably accepting some comforting facts that can not be proven. It feels good, it feels good like taking a walk at night when you know everyone else is asleep. Knowing that you are experiencing life while others merely dream of the things they dare not do. Knowing, with a smile, that because you don't foolishly waste your money on self-distractions like beer and cable TV and escorts that you can sleep in, that you don't have to work... for awhile. And somehow, you know you will get by. I suppose this can be considered faith, but not really because it is based on truth and a deep confidence in oneself. To me it doesn't make sense that the universe is a random, chatoic place with no beauty and no meaning. I don't believe in a bearded God in the sky commanding fathers to kill their sons in his name or casts plagues... but I do believe that the universe runs on some beautiful, logical and ultimately fair system and that gives me some peace.

Wow, I really didn't mean to say all that. Stream of consciousness I suppose...

Well, goodnight.

- Narz

[Narz]

By the way, my forum is now working. My apologies for anyone who tried to join before. There were some problems, now they are fixed. Come on over (see sig for URL).

[Ben Kenobi]

The accolades reserved for heroes, a religious belief in future rewards awaiting those who sacrifice, and avoiding the guilt of allowing a loved one to die. These are all "selfish" motivations, are they not?

Berzerker:
Sorry to jump in the middle of this debate.

I'm going to violate Agathon's law that you don't use dictionaries to flesh out a particular word.

In this case, what does selfishness mean?

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

Both of these seem to fit someone excessively concerned with his eternal reward and disregarding others

The problem with this approach is that, at least for Christians, this is backwards. You do not earn your reward, all Christians should already have their reward. 'You are saved, not by works, but by grace alone, through faith alone.'

To be a Christian, one must first confess. Once you have confessed, you will receive eternal life, that is the promise we all recieve.

For this reason works are meaningless to get us into heaven. So why do works? If you love someone, you will do what they want you to do. God commands certain actions, to love your neighbour as yourself. For this reason, out of the love that you have for God, you will work.

Now, I ask, is this a selfish motivation? No, so long as one remembers the purpose to which you are working, to glorify God, and to help your fellow neighbours.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
There are various methods of dealing with establishing the legimacy of property rights. I take it that your position to accept the opinion of the state?

I said that my position is that the person who paid for or inherited something owns it.

The Swiss were an awfully militaristic society with a long tradition of military service, etc. I'm sure there were even huge numbers of reserves from previous service still in the military. So, I'm just not convinced that they couldn't have marshalled up enough men without resorting to conscription.

First you accuse them of appeasing Hitler, then you say that they had enough people to stand up to Germany without using conscription. If they cound have been so confident in a non-conscripted military, why did they have to appease them to prevent invasion, even after mobilizing so many people? You can´t have it both ways.

The Swiss had to work hard to maintain neutral. They had to build up such a big force that invading them would have been vary hard, and they still had to use diplomacy to prevent Hitler from trying to invade them anyway. I´m not saying that they should have stayed neutral, I am saying that, given their strategic choice, they needed conscription to prevent war and a Fascist takeover and all the coercion that would have caused.

Why? It's the poor that have to pay these taxes. If you're going to use coercion to fund government programs, the last people that should be taxed are the poor.

If someone makes a choice to do something costs society, they should have to pay those costs. Otherwise, they are using the government to coerce me into paying for their stupid choices, which is clearly wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1169049.stm

That link describes a black market in the UK, not the USA. But I do concede the point about high taxes leading to black markets. Apparently the taxes in the USA are not high enough to cause a black market.

What's the contradiction? Just because a state shouldn't suppress some organization, doesn't justify the existence of the organization. The state shouldn't suppress the KKK or corporations, etc., but that doesn't make them ok.

If an organization causes coercion, then the state has a duty to suppress them, in order to decrease the total coercion.

The "common" lexicon really doesn't have any words that better describe my position ....

Orwell clearly wasn't thinking about this situation. His beef was with mindless phrases and elitist vocubulary.

I wasn´t referring to the name of your position, I was referring to your elitist use of the words Socialism and Capitalism.

This is just absurd. I've never heard anyone seriously say that feudalism is socialist.

It fits the common, dictionary definition. And I have heard many people refer to the USSR and other failed socialist states as degenerating into a feudal government.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Narz
Wow, this thread still around? Amazing how a post, about an author of a book I've read, at three in the morning would start such a controversy!

There are certain topics around here that act like a spark in a munitions dump. Ayn Rand is, obviously, one of them.

So many people are programmed into thinking that they as individuals aren't worth anything. I find this very sad.

This is very true. People do need to learn to think for themselves. But Rand´s philosophy is the wrong way to teach them to do so. There are much better ways to learn logic, philosophy, and self-respect. I find it ironic that so many people follow Rand blindly, fitting into the crown of Objectivists.

It makes you see the world, your parents, your peers, the so-called authorities in your life for what they are, merely imperfect humans.

Of course they are. Just don´t forget that you are an imperfect human too. Too many people who follow Rand delude themselves into thinking that they are superhumans who deserve to rule everyone else.

You seem to have some brains, though. I´ll check out that forum.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan - Not even all Christians believe that doctrine, many believe works do matter and Jesus can be quoted to support such a belief. If faith alone mattered and not works, then Jesus sure wasted alot of time explaining to people how they should act. And if having faith alone translated into good deeds, then again, Jesus would have told people to have faith, not provide a blueprint for our behavior. Why would Jesus ask us to treat others as we want to be treated when just having faith would lead us to observe the Golden Rule? As for the definition of selfishness, that definition doesn't require that others not benefit from one's action, only that the actor benefits and his motivation for acting is primarily concerned with those benefits. Being in the good graces of God is a motivation, and a "selfish" one since the actor seeks the reward of eternal life and acts accordingly to acquire that reward.

[Berzerker]

Richard -

If someone makes a choice to do something costs society, they should have to pay those costs. Otherwise, they are using the government to coerce me into paying for their stupid choices, which is clearly wrong.

If "society" decided to pay those costs and not me, then that's society's problem. If I smoke tobacco, snort cocaine, or ingest sugar by the truckload, I haven't imposed anything upon you unless I support politicians who compel you to help pay for my choices. If I don't support these politicians and you do, that's your own fault. If I don't support these politicians but others do, blame them, not me. To use coercion against me because someone else is using coercion against you is clearly wrong.

[Ramo]

Berzerker, there are basically two issues this argument has come down to.

1. Under capitalist property rights, a descendent of a slaveowner is liable to the descendent of a slave for the coercively acquired labor of that slave (assuming the estate after his descendents died is large enough). Under capitalism, this translates into the wages he would've paid that person. Not the profits he gained from the labor. "Profiteering" off coercion is irrelevent.

2. The vast majority of inhabited land in the world was aquired through force eventually down the line. I don't see how it's consistent with libertarian capitalism to declare arbitrarily that the property claims that the government currently accepts are correct. If person A currently controls 1 acre and person B currently controls 5000 acres, why cannot person A say that he controls 20 acres of person B's land?

You seem to make a big deal about "establishing" a "moral" property line, but I don't see how that works. Again, why can't I just establish a moral property claim where I own the entire world?

This is not to say that I don't ever accept government claims. I do. Particularly in the West, including the US. I don't think it would reduce net coercion if the workers start expropriating the means of production without the consent of current owners. In fact, I think such an action would substantially increase coercion. But my criteria is not directly connected to having a history of voluntary exchange.

Regarding the Homestead Act,

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/five/homestd.htm

Be it enacted, That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen of the United States, or who shall have filed his declaration of intention to become such, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, and who has never borne arms against the United States Government or given aid and comfort to its enemies, shall, from and after the first of January, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, be entitled to enter one quarter-section or a less quantity of unappropriated public lands, upon which said person may have filed a pre-emption claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to pre-emption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed: Provided, That any person owning or residing on land may, under the provisions of this act, enter other land lying contiguous to his or her said land, which shall not, with the land so already owned and occupied, exceed in the aggregate one hundred and sixty acres.

Note the monetary requirements. Not everyone could get land under the Homestead Act. The majority of it was bought up by speculators. IIRC, only about 20% of the land claimed under this act in the 19th Century was bought up by homesteaders. It wasn't until the 20th century, that homesteaders really started getting land.

RB:

I said that my position is that the person who paid for or inherited something owns it.

We've just been through this. How do you know that there wasn't a person down the line that didn't pay for it or inherited it? So anyways, you take the claims of the state, correct?

First you accuse them of appeasing Hitler, then you say that they had enough people to stand up to Germany without using conscription. If they cound have been so confident in a non-conscripted military, why did they have to appease them to prevent invasion, even after mobilizing so many people? You can´t have it both ways.

I don't think that if all of the Swiss people were mobilized, that would've guaranteed that Hitler wouldn't invade. I don't really know one way or another about whether a volunteer effort could get a comparable amount of people into arms as conscription would. I'd be interested in seeing evidence though. But anyways, I do agree with your premise that conscription can possibly be moral. Just like any action can under the right circumstances.

f someone makes a choice to do something costs society, they should have to pay those costs. Otherwise, they are using the government to coerce me into paying for their stupid choices, which is clearly wrong.

But these people are hurting themselves, not you or me. I don't think that the state should make money through coercing poor addicts.

That link describes a black market in the UK, not the USA. But I do concede the point about high taxes leading to black markets. Apparently the taxes in the USA are not high enough to cause a black market.

I brought up the UK link because it was written by the BBC, a fairly reputable source, and they have a far bigger problem than we do. And it was the second link that came up on google.

References to the US' black market in tobacco are harder to find, but they're there.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba269.html

Look at the section labelled "Black Market."

If an organization causes coercion, then the state has a duty to suppress them, in order to decrease the total coercion

Only if the act of suppressing this organization doesn't increase coercion more than suppressing the organization decreases coercion. Which is not the case unless these people are doing something extremely coercive. Like slavery or crushing strikes for instance.

I wasn´t referring to the name of your position, I was referring to your elitist use of the words Socialism and Capitalism.

Using a dictionary definition isn't useful in a serious philosophical/political debate when discussing something as broad and complex as socialism or capitalism. In such debates, people are expected to be familiar with political philosophy and history.

It fits the common, dictionary definition. And I have heard many people refer to the USSR and other failed socialist states as degenerating into a feudal government

Well maybe in lalaland, feudalism is socialist, but no one would seriously say that. That's just so antithetical to socialism, these words start to lose meaning. Why don't I just call up, down and right, left?

Ok, I'll use my favorite online dictionary, dictionary.com. Here are the two of the four definitions I get:

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

so·cial·ism     P   Pronunciation Key  (ssh-lzm)
n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Happy?

[Ben Kenobi]

Being in the good graces of God is a motivation, and a "selfish" one since the actor seeks the reward of eternal life and acts accordingly to acquire that reward.

Berzerker:

I addressed your point.

"So why do works? If you love someone, you will do what they want you to do. God commands certain actions, to love your neighbour as yourself. For this reason, out of the love that you have for God, you will work."

Works should be done, but they do not get you into heaven.

I also think you confuse the word 'grace'. God does not save us because of what nice people we are, he saves us because he is a merciful God. In this sense, I use the word 'Grace' to represent the love that God has for us.

How can it be selfish to work for the glory of God, since to do so, you have to deny personal ambitions?

How can it be selfish to help others with their burdens, if you are only trying to make their lives easier?

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
But these people are hurting themselves, not you or me. I don't think that the state should make money through coercing poor addicts.

All hospitals are required to accept emergency cases free of charge. This includes drug overdoses and cases of delerium tremens. This is just one example of how the health effects of toxic substances impose costs on taxpayers and society. If hospitals were permited to turn away such cases unless they paid, and if the government gave absolutely no support or medical care to these people, I would agree with you. But coercion-acquired tax dollars are used to subsideze these kind of habits.

Basically there are three options:

1) Impose no taxes and provide no treatment, allowing people to die if they can´t afford treatment. I suppose this is the proper libertarian and anarchist way of dealing with things.
2) Provide treatment, funded with taxes on people who have not caused the problem. This, in effect, coerces one group of people to pay for the stupidity of another.
3) Provide treatment, funded with taxes on the substances that actually cause the problem. This seems, to me, the best way of dealing with it.

Using a dictionary definition isn't useful in a serious philosophical/political debate when discussing something as broad and complex as socialism or capitalism. In such debates, people are expected to be familiar with political philosophy and history.

I understand that the dictionary is not complete. But you used definitions that flatly contradict the dictionary. You said that socialism is free-market and that capitalism is not, and you said that it was foolish of me to say that capitalism equals a free market. We are not talking about subtelties, these are basic differences in meaning. The dictionary clearly supports my definition.

I never said feudalism is socialism, just that it contains elements of socialism. You agreed that fascism contains elements of socialism, and obviously those are quite different. It is a simple fact that, in a feudal society, the government controls and regulates the means of production. Thus feudalism is the opposite of capitalism.

[Berzerker]

Richard -

1) Impose no taxes and provide no treatment, allowing people to die if they can´t afford treatment. I suppose this is the proper libertarian and anarchist way of dealing with things.

Ever hear of charity? It's not like hospitals and doctors just let people die before socialised medicine, but charity was not what the socialists had in mind for us.

2) Provide treatment, funded with taxes on people who have not caused the problem. This, in effect, coerces one group of people to pay for the stupidity of another.

And your solution is no different.

3) Provide treatment, funded with taxes on the substances that actually cause the problem. This seems, to me, the best way of dealing with it.

So people who use drugs but don't need taxpayer subsidised care end up paying for those who do? You just violated #2...

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

"So why do works? If you love someone, you will do what they want you to do. God commands certain actions, to love your neighbour as yourself. For this reason, out of the love that you have for God, you will work."

Then why did Jesus have to tell people how to act on all sorts of matters if all that was needed was love?

Works should be done, but they do not get you into heaven.

You have a quote from Jesus saying works don't matter?

How can it be selfish to work for the glory of God, since to do so, you have to deny personal ambitions?

Why does one have to deny personal ambitions? Isn't acceptance into heaven a personal ambition?

How can it be selfish to help others with their burdens, if you are only trying to make their lives easier?

If the reward is heaven, I'd call that a motive. And atheists help others because it makes them feel good about themselves.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

1. Under capitalist property rights, a descendent of a slaveowner is liable to the descendent of a slave for the coercively acquired labor of that slave (assuming the estate after his descendents died is large enough). Under capitalism, this translates into the wages he would've paid that person. Not the profits he gained from the labor. "Profiteering" off coercion is irrelevent.

I equate profits with wages since the wages not paid were a profit. You didn't explain how one inherits coercion.

2. The vast majority of inhabited land in the world was aquired through force eventually down the line. I don't see how it's consistent with libertarian capitalism to declare arbitrarily that the property claims that the government currently accepts are correct.

Because the absence of a line of ownership makes it impossible to determine the rightful owner, so the line of ownership begins with the first person to establish a legal or moral line of ownership.

If person A currently controls 1 acre and person B currently controls 5000 acres, why cannot person A say that he controls 20 acres of person B's land?

Person A can say whatever they like, but if they have no moral claim to the land, their words are meaningless.

You seem to make a big deal about "establishing" a "moral" property line, but I don't see how that works.

Simple, a plot of land is uninhabited and there is no record of ownership. The state arranges for an interested party to take the land and a legal line of ownership is created.

Again, why can't I just establish a moral property claim where I own the entire world?

Because you can't prove your claim, people existed long before you and so did legal lines of ownership.

I don't think it would reduce net coercion if the workers start expropriating the means of production without the consent of current owners. In fact, I think such an action would substantially increase coercion. But my criteria is not directly connected to having a history of voluntary exchange.

Then to what is your criteria connected?

Note the monetary requirements. Not everyone could get land under the Homestead Act. The majority of it was bought up by speculators. IIRC, only about 20% of the land claimed under this act in the 19th Century was bought up by homesteaders. It wasn't until the 20th century, that homesteaders really started getting land.

We have dueling links: The price you cited was an alternative to settling the land for 5 years, not the price actual homesteaders had to pay.

http://www.nps.gov/home/homestead_act.html

A homesteader had only to be the head of a household and at least 21 years of age to claim a 160 acre parcel of land. Settlers from all walks of life including newly arrived immigrants, farmers without land of their own from the East, single women and former slaves came to meet the challenge of "proving up" and keeping this "free land". Each homesteader had to live on the land, build a home, make improvements and farm for 5 years before they were eligible to "prove up". A total filing fee of $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful settlers.

$18 with $12 up front and $6 after ~5 years was hardly prohibitive.

And from your site:

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/five/homestd.htm

Sec. 2. That the person applying for the benefit of this act shall, upon application to the register of the land office in which he or she is about to make such entry, make affidavit before the said register or receiver that he or she is the head of a family, or is twenty-one or more years of age, or shall have performed service in the Army or Navy of the United States, and that he has never borne arms against the Government of the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies, and that such application is made for his or her exclusive use and benefit, and that said entry is made for the purpose of actual settlement and cultivation, and not, either directly or indirectly, for the use or benefit of any other person or persons whomsoever; and upon filing the said affidavit with the register or receiver, and on payment of ten dollars, he or she shall thereupon he permitted to enter the quantity of land specified

As for your other stats:

http://users.rcn.com/deeds/homestead.htm

Although it remained in effect, with numerous modifications, until repealed in 1977, the Homestead Act was not an unqualified success. The better lands soon came under the control of the railroads and speculators, forcing settlers to buy from them rather than accept the poorer government lands. Even so, by 1900 about 600,000 farmers had received clear title under the act to lands covering about 80 million acres

Yes, some of the land was grabbed up by speculators and RR's, but they did this illegally according to the provisions of the act which required settlers to take the lands (except for those who bought the land at the higher price). But according to one of my links, the total acreage acquired under the act was ~270,000,000. And about 30 % of that was already in the hands of farmers by 1900 even though people continued getting land under the act up until the 1970's. Btw, Kansas became a state more than a decade before the HA and this area had been settled long before statehood.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ever hear of charity? It's not like hospitals and doctors just let people die before socialised medicine, but charity was not what the socialists had in mind for us.

Many doctors and hospitals could and did turn away anyone who couldn´t pay. Charity hospitals were, as often as not, a place to die that was slightly cleaner and warmer than the street. Poor houses and the like had a miserable reputation.

So people who use drugs but don't need taxpayer subsidised care end up paying for those who do? You just violated #2...

There is a big difference between a sales tax on a luxury good and an income tax that is always confiscated from you. If you have to raise money, the former is much less coercive.