Regarding squatters, if I were a bank that foreclosed, given this ruling, I'd start loading them up with mold and contagious diseases rather than let people take them from me. If it really came to it, I'd burn them down.
Regarding the source of property rights: If you can get raw materials without venturing on someone else's property, you can indeed work them and own the end product. But land is property, and most of it is owned. Dougly could grow vegetables in an unowned lot, if such existed, and claim them. Or he can do so on his own land. Or on land that the owner agreed to let him use. He would have essentially harnessed the rain and the sun in convenient carryable form and should be entitled to sole dispensation over what happens to the product.
22/7 wrote:I'm glad I took the time to read through (most of) that. The article touched on something I've noticed more and more the older I get, and Steroid touched on a very specific aspect of it that I hadn't been able to place before. First, the idea of karma being some kind of ruling theory, which is really nice to believe because it means you're in control of your life, and let's face it, lots of people aren't.
Sure they are. Everyone has the choice of what they get up and do in the morning. What you don't have is control of the consequences. Just because good consequences--health, wealth, prosperity, new goods and services--exist doesn't mean that any one person is entitled to them. In fact, each one of us is just like the caveman: we have nothing inherently, we just have the ability to work less to gain more.
It's a really convenient scape goat and aligns nicely with the Christian (as well as many other religions, actually) idea that God does good things for people who are good and bad things to people who are bad. I mean, if that's how things work, then you don't have to have any empathy for anyone at all because their situation is their own fault. So a safety net like welfare or lower taxes for people who make less money wouldn't be fair to everyone else because it's their own fault they're poor.
It's not even a case of "their own fault," it's "not my fault," so why is it my responsibility? I'm not your parent, I'm not your friend. I'm not a Corsican brother. If you starve, I don't feel it. If you get cut, I don't bleed.
Kind of an extension of the karmic rule that Steroid brought up is another common reasoning, that because a system is bound to be gamed by someone, that it shouldn't exist. I see this logic applied to social issues ranging from welfare to abortion to drug use. Because someone might live off of welfare and not work, no one should get welfare. Because someone will use abortions as a way to divorce sex and the "consequences" of sex (i.e., having a baby) or people might have more sex out of wedlock, or whatever, no one should be able to get an abortion. Because someone will abuse drugs, no one should be able to use them. Of course, these arguments are incredibly simplified, as they have to be to make any sense. Anyone who has been on welfare or has known someone who had to go on welfare knows that it's not a life of luxury, but it goes back to the karmic idea. If someone can game the system, then that's not fair to the people who aren't gaming the system, so the system shouldn't exist.
If you want your system to be gamed, go ahead, just include me out. Look, someone could go to a church charity, fake piety, and walk off with help. I don't care, because I don't give to the church. Whatever people want to do with their wealth, including give it away, is fine by me. But people want to give away my wealth, and that's theft.
What about this one "Dumbass goes in, somebody who thinks Ayn Rand was right comes out"?[/quote]
You know, these aren't reasoned arguments. If my ideas shock you, perhaps you should think about them dispassionately.
So, we're going to ramp up the free markets how exactly? Are we going to force the haves to liquidate their assets to turn them into capital for these potentially profitable robot-run farms that will then eliminate unskilled labor which further deprives those at the bottom of the economic chain from the ability to use their labor to boost themselves up the socio-economic ladder and help their children into such privilege as a college education. Yeah, thought that move through did ya? Here's a hint, the haves benefit the most from the society that all are contributing to. They benefit the most from government protection and from the labor of the rest of society. So, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and state that they owe the most to the running and maintenance of that society. Your problem is that you're assuming everybody benefits the same from the social contract. They don't.
Nope, we're going to take the handcuffs off so that the haves can increase their capital by getting rid of false costs, then open up competition so that when people stop buying from a company it has to close down or curtail instead of getting bailed out, and then the market is going to determine what it wants. And maybe it doesn't want convenience and cheap food. Maybe it wants wood-paneled homes and fancy cars. But wherever there is market viable there will be an opportunity for someone to get rich.
By the way, by your logic, because the white European imperialists enslaved your ancestors and subsequently your being a poor ass smuck because society has discriminated against you and your ancestors thus denying your ability to improve your lot is your own damn fault.
They enslaved your ancestors. They didn't enslave you. In fact, they specifically said you're free. Actually, they said it to your great-great-great grandparents. Why haven't you acted free?
If all you're providing is a brick of ramen and a lean to you're essentially creating exactly what you don't like: a group of people who are always going to depend on welfare for their existence. The minimum keeps moving because the minimum for what it takes to have the opportunity to pull oneself up by their own bootstraps as it were keeps increasing. You didn't need a phone way the hell back in the day because it wasn't required for communications to get employment. Now it is is. Increasingly the ability to have basic computer skills is a requirement and thus in order to gain employ you're going to have to acquire those.
You don't need those to work manual labor. You do that 16/7 till you can afford a phone. Look, there's no such thing as too poor to work more than you spend. But you have to be willing to do it, which means you have to want to improve your lot.
Congratulations on advocating genocide. I appreciate your sentiment, but when you're advocating childish logic--i.e. the self-oriented selfish logic you're advocating--people aren't going to take you all that seriously. Your analogy is pretty much shit considering its historical inaccuracy anyways. It's not like the Arab world happened to have protected the knowledge which was then rediscovered as a wealthy urban class that depended on trade and skills closer resembling an educated populace emerged and as a feudal system dependent on largely uneducated and unskilled labor mixed with consistent destructive violence waned or anything like that. The weak dying off had nothing to do with the stronger surviving, but rather the emergence of a new economic system.
I'm not advocating genocide, I'm predicting it. Oh, the second Dark Age won't be as bad, for the reason you say, but suppose that something killed 50% of the worlds population. No more labor force, no more markets. . . wouldn't there be a real serious economic and political collapse?
As for redistribution of wealth by the state, I'm sorry, but when the wealthy stop benefiting disproportionately by state protection I might give a shit about your poorly constructed argument.
Oh, I'm just as much against corporate welfare as I am against welfare welfare. No, I don't think that rich people should get farm subsidies. Junk them all, I say. I just don't see a difference, macroeconomically speaking, between money to be spent on the frivolities of the rich, and money to be spent on the survival of the poor.
Seriously, can you not get it through your head that there are reasons that the poor are poor and it's not because they deserve it, but rather that they and their ancestry have been systematically discriminated against? You keep bringing up example after example of exactly that and it goes right over your head. Cognitive dissonance, you can has.
Many people's ancestry has been discriminated against, including mine (They just loved Sicilians right off the boat, right?). Some are poor and some have advanced. Same stimulus, different response. No causation, QED.
The private market fails major ass to do education. Want to guess when the majority of the population started to be educated and all those wonderful things requiring science and such started to really take off? I'll give you a hint, roughly the same time that government funded public education really took hold.
And that was the same time that the statist government started to come into play. Oh joy.
There's a reason you get so much hostility: your arguments are poor, your research is spotty, and on top of that you're pretty much calling for a genocide of most of the population of the planet. See why people might think you're a bit of an ass?
No! You have a first-principle premise of "Anything that calls for genocide against most of the population of the planet is wrong." I'm not that biased. My first-principle is "Anything that is unjust ought to be correct to be just," and if people's whole lives are unjust, then why should they continue?
Malice wrote:I think you are confused. "You're straight, so you're a bigot" is not something people say. The behavior you began by discussing is when somebody comes up to you and says, "You're being a bigot, so fuck off, asshole." You were equating bigotry against gays with bigotry against bigots, not bigotry against straights. I'm not going to suggest that bigotry against straights doesn't exist, because everything exists somewhere, and there are a probably a few hardcore gay joints where people might jeer at you and call you a breeder if you wandered in like a lost little lamb looking for hot lesbian chicks. But the problem of bigotry against straights is so minor as to be completely beside the point. It's not systemic, it's not enforced by the law, and by and large it is not socially enforced either.
No, you're missing the point. Let's replace, "You're straight, so you're a bigot," with "All tea partiers are racists and homophobes." and re-submit. Yes, I know, voluntary group. It's still bigotry in that it hurts and offends. I shouldn't have to leave a group I voluntarily join in order to be Basically Decent.
Steroid wrote:It's not the only way to run a workplace. In fact, they tried it your way for a very long time. The result was diners where black people couldn't sit and eat lunch. Conclusion? Government mandates.
Right, busybodies destroying property rights. That's a BAD thing, okay? Look, let me try to take this down as far as I can philosophically:
-Property rights ought to be absolute.
-Because if they are, then real-world events are entirely under the control of one human being.
-And one human being is the only thing in the universe that doesn't follow strict laws but has free will.
-And that free will ought to be unsullied by the crushing forces of those strict laws.
-Because metaphysically, concepts like free will have existence equal to (though not in the same way as) matter and energy.
-And by denying them politically, we act in counter to metaphysical reality.
-Which is factually and logically wrong.
Yeah, it really sucks that businesses must make a token effort to inform interviewees and employees of their rights. Quit whining.
Yeah, it really sucks that gays can't get a job
. Quit whining.
Hear how that sounds? Because if you're saying they're not the same thing, then you're saying you're better than me. And you are not better than me.
I've bolded the actual part that makes it "not the same thing". He's not saying he's better than you. He's saying not being able to get a job and put food on the table for your family is not equivalent to having to put up some posters in your place of business.[/quote]
Well, this has gone on too long and I think we're at loggerheads. So since this thread is called What Tea Partiers Really Want, I'll say that this Tea Partier really Wants recognition that, again, speaking economically, the first penny that earns the bread you need to survive is no different from the billionth dollar that buys you a yacht. I believe that and advocate politics in its light. And I think this disagreement is at the root of the rest of the points here: a black man's job versus another man's property, racism not mattering for the poor but mattering for the rich, current starvation versus future progress, etc.