Where are my libertarians?

[Greoric]

Well, I would disagree that a lack of an obvious claimant to the stolen land undoes or mitigates any injustice (I also think a whole lot of deontological libertarians would have bones to pick here as well), but that's getting off track. The point isn't about finding a solution or compensating losers, but trying to find a point where accusations of force are no longer a relevant factor in an exchange of land.

I'm well aware that all land was, at some point, essentially stolen--this actually its nicely into the example I was trying to make: We know that, going far enough back, much land that is now occupied by people was seized by force at one point from another group of people. Assuming that one doesn't find the previous example of the exchange between the warlord and the first buyer as legitimate, we can infer that there is a point between "land stolen thousands of years ago" and "land stolen last week/month/year" where the "stolen" part no longer matters (or, at least, is no longer relevant) to the current occupant.

Well just to be clear I'm not suggesting that the situation excuses the injustice, as much as the problem is there without a solution if no claimant exists otherwise.

To your bigger concern though, that threshold of where the stolen property matters isn't a gray area. It's a definable one, where a claimant can prove a connection to the land that was stolen. It's easier for me to prove empirically, circumstantially, or otherwise that my car, which a car thief stole and sold, is actually mine, than it would be for someone five generations removed to prove a piece of land was once stolen from his great great grandfather that he intended to pass down as an heirloom to him.

 

[Thurisaz]

This is the problem with a lot of libertarians. They are basically free market leftists.

Yep. It isn't an accident Karl Marx endorsed free trade.

That should ring a few bells, but liebertarians can't let go of their autism for long enough to think about it.

 

[Phelly2]

I'm a libertarian (maybe even anarchist) at my core. I would prefer no leaders at all if it were possible, but my pragmatic side says our society is nowhere near ready for that. So for the moment, I'm content with trying to shrink government and reduce government power whenever and wherever possible.

I really wanted to vote libertarian, but nobody gave Gary Johnson a chance, so I supported Trump over Bernie/Hillary because they're all about expanding government power and Trump seems to be more about shrinking it, at least on the whole.

 

[Phelly2]

Deleted the content of this post because I'm pretty sure I had you confused with someone else.

 

[TheGreatA]

I'm a libertarian (maybe even anarchist) at my core. I would prefer no leaders at all if it were possible, but my pragmatic side says our society is nowhere near ready for that. So for the moment, I'm content with trying to shrink government and reduce government power whenever and wherever possible.

I really wanted to vote libertarian, but nobody gave Gary Johnson a chance, so I supported Trump over Bernie/Hillary because they're all about expanding government power and Trump seems to be more about shrinking it, at least on the whole.

I would say that we need to focus, at first, on building a state which is capable of bringing up generations of citizens who are increasingly self-sufficient and independent of the state, so that people can eventually live in ideal, near anarchic-conditions, without being nannied by an excessively bureaucratic, ever-expansive government which has always proved to be detrimental to the human condition.

Right now it appears that we are generally doing the opposite. The state gains more power while the individualism of the citizens continues to decrease. This general progress needs to be halted before we are too far gone from being the kind of species that we were meant to be.

 

[WiolentOne]

In my hypothetical, no, there wouldn't be any family members left to claim the land.

I'm less concerned with who ought to be compensated and more concerned about the legitimacy of an exchange that involves something that is, in all technicality, stolen. Deciding what to do with the land will vary depending on one's political leanings.

Essentially, in Greoric's world, genocide can be used as a legitimate means to transfer land from unjust-to-just ownership. And this transaction is perfectly valid with the new owner completely relieved of any and all ethical responsibility, in Greoric's world.

From a person who is so quick to lambast any form of coercion, it does seem rather, well, hypocritical.

 

[shitpostmodern]

Yep. It isn't an accident Karl Marx endorsed free trade.

That should ring a few bells, but liebertarians can't let go of their autism for long enough to think about it.

Marx's argument for accelerationism was that it would increase tension between workers and owners, and that it would speed up the decline of such relationships as the system became more cut-throat.

You have to understand--Marx is less concerned with trade and more concerned with productive relations between humans. For Marx, if there is no capitalist (or boss) claiming a portion of the profit, the system isn't technically "capitalist".

Please let me know if there is anything I can clear up!

 

[11_others]

I really wanted to vote libertarian, but nobody gave Gary Johnson a chance, so I supported Trump over Bernie/Hillary because they're all about expanding government power and Trump seems to be more about shrinking it, at least on the whole.

Ummm, I definitely share many libertarian values, but Gary Johnson was a total moron and a goof. Aleppo and not being able to name foreign leaders was the least of it. He was an absolute ignoramus regarding illegal immigration.

 

[TheGreatA]

Essentially, in Greoric's world, genocide can be used as a legitimate means to transfer land from unjust-to-just ownership. And this transaction is perfectly valid with the new owner completely relieved of any and all ethical responsibility, in Greoric's world.

From a person who is so quick to lambast any form of coercion, it does seem rather, well, hypocritical.

The solution to ending violence is not to endlessly whine and to criticize humans about past genocides, for which they cannot be held responsible, but to focus on not committing them in the future.

That is all a man can do.

If the weight of our collective guilt weighs too heavily upon a person's shoulder, then there's a quick fix to all that.

 

[Thurisaz]

Marx's argument for accelerationism was that it would increase tension between workers and owners, and that it would speed up the decline of such relationships as the system became more cut-throat.

And for once he was correct.

 

[Chomsky Honk]

3 likes

 

[Max Power]

I am somewhat sympathetic to libertarianism though I am not sure that it would work. An Cappers are batshit insane imo.

 

[shitpostmodern]

And for once he was correct.

I think Marx was correct about a lot of things. As a 19th century social theorist, he's the pointy tip of that food pyramid (with Weber and Durkheim, although they are agruably less influential).

Despite what pundits say about Marx, most of his work doesn't even concern communism or socialism--he spent more time criticizing other leftists than he did writing about how to achieve communism or what it would be like.

For the most part, Marx was curious how feudalism (more specifically, agricultural-based economies based on lord-peasant relationships) evolved into capitalism (industrial-based economies with worker-boss relationships) in Western Europe, and how property norms evolve alongside these labor relationships.

Near the end of his life, he began to focus more and more on economics (as he was living in London and was spending lots of time reading classical British economists like Ricardo/Hume/Smith) and moved away from his more anthropological/historiographical stuff, which is a shame because his older stuff was really neat. Marxian value theory is kind of a mess empirically, and unfortunately comes off as incoherent, at least to me.

 

[Thurisaz]

Near the end of his life, he began to focus more and more on economics (as he was living in London and was spending lots of time reading classical British economists like Ricardo/Hume/Smith) and moved away from his more anthropological/historiographical stuff, which is a shame because his older stuff was really neat. Marxian value theory is kind of a mess empirically, and unfortunately comes off as incoherent, at least to me.

Von Mises trounced his economics thoroughly. They're not that hard to understand, they just don't work.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Probably dying while relying on social security and Medicare like their hero Ayn Rand

NOT a Rand fan, but that's factually not true. Plenty of real stuff to criticize Rand on, but also a lot of fake stuff floats around about her. Anyhow, I seem to line up with the libertarians more than anything else, but am not strictly a libertarian, especially with a big L.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Libertarianism kills itself because it has literally no protection. What absolutely free trade means the whole of Africa could immigrate in and good luck having and preserving your precious freedoms then.

Think you mean open borders, bro. And no, not ALL libertarians support that. Like Ron Paul for instance. I think less and less libertarians, at least small l libertarians, are supporting open borders. I think most of them realize that Western values need to be protected or are starting to realize that more and more.

 

[Gandhi]

How do you completely abstain from violence in the resolution of society's problems?

By redefining it to only include the forms of coercion libertarians like.

 

[Rozko]

I am somewhat sympathetic to libertarianism though I am not sure that it would work. An Cappers are batshit insane imo.

You should look into Minarchism. It basically promotes the idea that humanity has not evolved enough socially to be completely stateless so we should limit the state. The should only consist of basic infrastructure needs, policing, courts, and general defense. If you are not harming someone else the government has no say in what you do.

 

[Rozko]

Think you mean open borders, bro. And no, not ALL libertarians support that. Like Ron Paul for instance. I think less and less libertarians, at least small l libertarians, are supporting open borders. I think most of them realize that Western values need to be protected or are starting to realize that more and more.

I am for allowing anyone to immigrate to the country so long as the have the following: a clean bill of health, no history of violence, a high school education. Then let them come. Let us know who is here and force them to integrate into the system (no state aid). If you don't like our culture you can leave.

 

[shitpostmodern]

Von Mises trounced his economics thoroughly. They're not that hard to understand, they just don't work.

Mises wrote a bit about the problems of allocating resources without a price mechanism in socialist countries. Marx wrote almost nothing about socialist countries or how to allocate resources in a socialist state. It's suspect that you actually think Mises was engaging Marx and not--y'know--a totally different 20th economist who had been writing about planned economies.

Let me know when you actually have something you'd like to add, though. Also, Happy Holidays