Rep. Stephen Fincher: “If the Poor Want Their Children to Eat Sell them as Slaves.”

[GhostWriter16]

I guess that would depend on your assessment about how good my writing is

I'm suddenly curious if Lighthearter is following this thread, since he's actually read some of my stuff...

 

[choxorn]

There is truth to that, of course, but I seriously doubt nearly as much would get done. Especially the more menial tasks that do kind of need to be done but few particularly enjoy would likely not get done.

That's why we get the robots to do those tasks, and program them to enjoy them.

 

[JollyRoger]

You are pretty good at satire.

 

[GhostWriter16]

We need capitalism so someone will have an incentive to do that

 

[GhostWriter16]

You are pretty good at satire.

No, I'm really not

Although I guess considering the difference between my posting style here and on RPF, I'm learning to hold back...

 

[JollyRoger]

I do admit that your satirizing of libertarians is a bit over the top.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm not satiring

This is who I am, darn it!

 

[useless]

What he's saying is to the untrained eye the way you act, the beliefs you hold and the fervant nature of said beliefs makes it look like it's a parody or satire of libertarianism.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, only now saw this thread.

Although i do not condone use of the bible in current politics, i should note that the actual quote from the bible does indeed have this meaning.

It is a quote from apostle Paul's second epistle to the people of Thessalonike ( ). It even has a nice (almost comedic) twist of phrase in the end, which is not captured in english at all.

It does indeed say at a main point that "those who are not working should not be given (free) food either". Paul was referring to his claim that when he was in Thessalonike he always worked for his own self, and thus those who are idle should not have a free ride.

In the end there is this phrase in that part of the epistle: "(...)ἀκούομεν γάρ τινας περιπατοῦντας ἐν ὑμῖν ἀτάκτως, μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους·". The last two terms are very similar, but utterly juxtaposed as to their meaning; the first means "working", the latter means "idly wandering"

 

[Traitorfish]

I am actually interested to address the point, but I don't honestly think I'm the right person to do so. Traitorfish is definitely smarter than I am

I get the distinction that is being made, but I don't see why its useful. Even in the yeoman farming world, its still the reality that, unless people voluntarily extend charity towards you, if you don't work you don't eat. To my understanding, you would say that that's not "Consent" since either you work or you starve.

It's not about the fact that they face a choice between working and starving. It's about the fact that in the case of the worker, his choice is contrived. His choice does not proceed from any brute facts, but from the social institution of property and the armed band of men who protect it, which prevents him from surviving in any other way.

A gun is held to the workers head as much as to the mugging-victim, and that in this case we introduce some legal distance between the gun and the mugging doesn't change that reality. People with guns to their head do not act freely, and as a consequence do not have the proceeds of their labour distributed in accordance with "justice", whatever you may imagine that to be, but with necessity. The worker does not get what he is due, he merely gets what he can get. The rest goes to the capitalist, not because he has the right to claim it, but because he has the strength to take it.

Wage-labour is a system by which the strong take from the weak under the guise of "justice", and nobody seriously supposing themselves a libertarian, no matter how in favour of the market and property they may be in principle, can ignore that.

 

[Farm Boy]

but I doubt people 200 years ago had to pay hefty taxes on their land. Kinda hard to live off a few acres if the state wants you to pay "rent"

If you like US agricultural history it is sort of tragic to see what rising property taxes did to largely subsistence western homesteaders as they aged past their prime. Towns grew up around them as was homesteading's policy goal. Land prices increased and they had no cash income to pay for it as they had developed a lifestyle of isolation. They generally weren't bad neighbors, they just didn't produce cash. Suicides and state managed tax foreclosures. The real end to the story of American can-do and entrepreneurial independence in the west. Brought to you by the glory of government policy and taxes.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's not about the fact that they face a choice between working and starving. It's about the fact that in the case of the worker, his choice is contrived. His choice does not proceed from any brute facts, but from the social institution of property and the armed band of men who protect it, which prevents him from surviving in any other way.

A gun is held to the workers head as much as to the mugging-victim, and that in this case we introduce some legal distance between the gun and the mugging doesn't change that reality. People with guns to their head do not act freely, and as a consequence do not have the proceeds of their labour distributed in accordance with "justice", whatever you may imagine that to be, but with necessity. The worker does not get what he is due, he merely gets what he can get. The rest goes to the capitalist, not because he has the right to claim it, but because he has the strength to take it.

Wage-labour is a system by which the strong take from the weak under the guise of "justice", and nobody seriously supposing themselves a libertarian, no matter how in favour of the market and property they may be in principle, can ignore that.

So again: Rothbard wasn't a libertarian?

 

[Traitorfish]

You tell me. I've laid out the libertarian critique of the wage-system, and if you have no response to it, as seems to be the case, you should be capable of deciding for yourself who is and who is not a libertarian.

 

[Rashiminos]

If they re-elect this clown its just further evidence we are getting the government we deserve.

Assuming that elections reflect the genuine will of the body politic...

Aces on both points.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You tell me. I've laid out the libertarian critique of the wage-system, and if you have no response to it, as seems to be the case, you should be capable of deciding for yourself who is and who is not a libertarian.

I want to try to formulate a response to it at some point but the bottom line is, you're not defining terms like "libertarian" the same way that people in the US do.

It doesn't matter to me what you call me, however. I've explained my position. I think you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't aggress against another person or his property, and I believe that the only legitimate function of the State is to protect people and their property from aggression, and to punish (After trial and conviction) those who violate said rights.

If you don't believe that I'm a libertarian: if you want to call me something else, that's no skin off my back. It honestly does not matter to me. I care about the substance of ideas more than I do about terminology. You'll probably have a rough time finding a "conservative" that supports non-interventionist foreign policy, the legalization of drugs, the legalization of prostitution, the repeal of the Patriot Act, the end of the TSA, DHS, and other similar organizations, exc. but if that's what you want to call me, I really do not care...

If you're a libertarian, I'm certainly not

Granted, in general I care a lot about how everyone else, particularly people I actually talk to, use terms than abouthow you use them. In America, anyone who heard you claim to be a libertarian would laugh at you. But I don't really care if you want to call yourself that. What you stand for is simply not what I stand for.

 

[FriendlyFire]

It doesn't matter to me what you call me, however. I've explained my position. I think you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't aggress against another person or his property, and I believe that the only legitimate function of the State is to protect people and their property from aggression, and to punish (After trial and conviction) those who violate said rights.

LINO !
You want the tyrannical government to control which Lane people can drive on. I demand that you immediately revoke your libertarian status to Tyrant murderer who kills freedom.

 

[Traitorfish]

I want to try to formulate a response to it at some point but the bottom line is, you're not defining terms like "libertarian" the same way that people in the US do.

It doesn't matter to me what you call me, however. I've explained my position. I think you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't aggress against another person or his property, and I believe that the only legitimate function of the State is to protect people and their property from aggression, and to punish (After trial and conviction) those who violate said rights.

If you don't believe that I'm a libertarian: if you want to call me something else, that's no skin off my back. It honestly does not matter to me. I care about the substance of ideas more than I do about terminology. You'll probably have a rough time finding a "conservative" that supports non-interventionist foreign policy, the legalization of drugs, the legalization of prostitution, the repeal of the Patriot Act, the end of the TSA, DHS, and other similar organizations, exc. but if that's what you want to call me, I really do not care...

If you're a libertarian, I'm certainly not

Granted, in general I care a lot about how everyone else, particularly people I actually talk to, use terms than abouthow you use them. In America, anyone who heard you claim to be a libertarian would laugh at you. But I don't really care if you want to call yourself that. What you stand for is simply not what I stand for.

It's not about the labels. It's about the substance of the criticism. You proclaim yourself a champion of freedom, yet actively support a system which as I have shown is productive of unfreedom among the great majority of the population. Your only response to that seems to be "yes, but I don't care", which doesn't just make your claim to "libertarianism" less than credible, but your claim to have the remotest interest in human freedom beyond the extent to human freedom may be coincidental with the sanctity of property.

You are a believer in and advocate of arbitrary and undemocratic authority. Plain and simple. That you only sometimes identify that authority with the state doesn't change anything.

 

[galdre]

It's too bad GW doesn't consider a person's life their property, maybe he would then consider the govt ensuring the quality of that life as important.

 

[peter grimes]

It's too bad GW doesn't consider a person's life their property, maybe he would then consider the govt ensuring the quality of that life as important.

Oh, please.

It's self-evident that intangible human constructs are the base of everything meaningful in the world.

As evidence, I offer (without substantiation, natch') that there has never existed a society of humans in which people were capable of happiness and satisfaction with the quality of their life absent a strong government-imposed heirarchy of property rights provisions.

QEf'inD

 

[sophie]

There is truth to that, of course, but I seriously doubt nearly as much would get done. Especially the more menial tasks that do kind of need to be done but few particularly enjoy would likely not get done.

Personally, I'd write even if it didn't benefit me at all. But that's about the only work I'd do. If I could that's probably all I'd do. The reality is, I'm probably not good enough at it to do that Which is life.

[YOUTUBE-OLD]u6XAPnuFjJc[/YOUTUBE-OLD]