Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 18, 2016.
Did you vote for Hillary? If so which character traits did you find appealing.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes, I voted for Hillary. I voted for Hillary because she was the most honest candidate on the ballot and because she was the most knowledgeable, capable, and advocated reasoned policies.
You claimed you didn't "deny" science, including "evolution" (you actually said "or" evolution, as if it evolutionary theory were separate from "science"). You claimed that you merely "questioned", occasionally.
I pointed out that some patterns of questioning are in fact denial, and that when you ask those kinds of questions you are in fact denying science.
I'm not assuming, I'm observing. And the universal "all" is not observed - merely the vast majority, the typical, the overwhelmingly representative. The percentage of liberal Trump voters, for example, is too small to register, while the percentage of racially and sexually bigoted Trump voters is well over 80 according to the polls.
Yes. The point being? Of course, I have not questioned that once there is a public road, then privatizing it takes away the right to travel on this road from the public. This nonetheless makes sense, if, first, the public is paid for this, and, second, if nobody is seriously harmed by this. But this is a problem of privatization. Not one of libertarian theory, but of democracy, which allows to sell public property based on the wishes of a majority, even if minorities would be harmed.
And, anyway, if privatizing public streets would be forbidden, even if they are only dead ends used by locals only, it means only that to create gated communities becomes more expensive, because they have to be build new, already completely on private property.
The point being? The argument is about libertarian/liberal theory. In the US, mass murder and genocide happened. Are now all white racists living today mass murderers? Are now all white heterosexual men, even libertarian ones, mass murderers?
1.) No, it is not irrelevant. If nobody is forced to participate in that apartheid, black people will find places where they are welcome.
2.) So what? I see no contradiction, because I have not made any claims that the historic South was very democratic or so.
As you have already admitted, small gated communities do not deprive black people of anything. And I see also no reason to whine if they are deprived the right to enter some dead ends in villages where anyway only white lives. Serious restrictions of travel would be another point - but in this case, not the gated communities are the problem, but the way how public roads are privatized.
Nonsense. I have always distinguished this. By the way, my Nazi comparison was not about this topological question. It was about harming others, by forbidding them to do harmless things, justified by some statistics (or prejudices) that if these harmless things would be allowed, they would do horrible crimes. So, read again. This logic of reasoning I have extracted from your quote.
But, ok, no need for this:
I have not expected such an open admission that American liberalism is, in its essence, not different from fascism. Indeed, if the only difference to fascism is that the anti-Semites have been incorrect in their prejudices against Jews, then, given the common American belief in various prejudices, supported by consistently lying mass media, there is no difference at all.
Except that you believe that your beliefs are correct, instead of being prejudices created by propaganda. Correction, sorry, no difference, the antisemites believe this too.
Minor objection: Exclusion from a community has to be distinguished from imprisonment, and is not something which indicated fascism. A small gated community excludes all non-members from the community, but this does not make it fascist.
See joepistole for an example of this? No, sorry, there is nothing to learn from such propaganda victims.
By the way, this suggests that you completely ignore one of the key insights of modern scientific methodology, namely that there are no theory-independent "facts", that every description of reality is based on some theories about reality. Popper has illustrated this somewhere with the example of "I see there a glass of water", showing that this sentence makes sense only based on a lot of theory (about, say, the properties of glass as well as water) and about particular circumstances of the particular situation where this "glass of water" is claimed to have been seen.
So if people are seriously harmed by this - as with the creation of voluntary white racist gated towns in the US - it does not make sense. Agreed.
It is also a problem of allowing voluntary racist communities in a situation such as the US - where the public will, as well as the private thought, is often racist.
In reality, black people had great difficulty finding "welcome" throughout the regions dominated by voluntary white racist communities, and were denied basic civil liberties enjoyed by those whites as a consequence. And in fact, you have several times attempted to attribute this exclusion and its effects to "democracy" acting via legal governmental coercion and law, despite being informed otherwise repeatedly.
And in reality, this would happen again if the US and State level governments did not forbid white racists from behaving in that way. There are too many of them, and they control too much of the wealth and resources of the landscape, for that kind of behavior to be harmless to black people.
Privatization of the publicly owned is not necessary and was not common, in the US, and gated white racist towns were and could be again created easily and at little expense - thousands of them, all over the place, controlling most of the resources on the landscape.
1) Anti-Semitism is not fascism, and not the only thing wrong with fascism. When you introduced the treatment of the Jews in Germany in WWII to this discussion, it was your responsibility to maintain that distinction - not bollix it, like that.
2) Consideration of reality in one's evaluations of liberty is not equivalent to fascism, either. It does not even resemble fascism. Rather the opposite: adherence to inadequate and naive theoretical principle (myth, in effect) in the face of repeated and continual contradiction by fact is the direction of resemblance to fascism, as we see in your posts - where you justify examples of outright racial oppression in the US, similar in many and significant ways to the treatment of the Jews by fascists in Europe, on "libertarian" grounds: because the racists were acting voluntarily and of their own free will, because legalities and official government coercion were not involved in their oppressions, etc.
I flatly denied that point in general. I made explicit its assumption that these communities would be relatively sparse, and not entirely control significant resources. I then corrected you on your invalid assumption that there would be only a few of them on a large landscape mostly free of their impositions, in reality. This is not always the case, and the US is a good example of a situation where that assumption is false.
You appear to be avoiding this matter still - with your yak of "privatization" and "small" and "dead end roads" and so forth.
That's not minor. That's the core of your difficulties here. The necessary distinction is one of fact, not principle, and your theory can't handle it.
Imprisonment is exactly, precisely, exclusion from a community or communities - when the community is large, or the communities are dense and surrounding, and the remaining available area is small or constrained and without resources of its own. A cell is one example. A ghetto is another. At one time the British were using the continent of Australia (a miscalculation, in the long run). And in the US there were the black areas, the rest of the landscape (and therefore the resources, etc) in large regions being forbidden to them. Not primarily by law, understand: by voluntary cooperation among white people with each other.
A liberal government of the US must forbid that, or give up its principle of establishing equality in civil rights and liberties among its citizens - essentially, abandon liberalism as its governing ideology.
Liberalism confuses equal rights with equal results. Equal rights means everyone plays by the same rules. Since different people have different skill levels and abilities, the results will not be the same for all people.
In sports, for example, everyone plays by the same rules no matter what age level, sex or league status. With the same rules in place, different people will achieve different results based on how they well they perform in that sport. The best of the best will become professional. The not so good, may only play in pick up games. This is not racist or sexist but is the way natural selection works.
The left on the other hand, tries to achieve equal results, by making more than one set of rules. They go through a long song and dance attributing differences in drive and ability, to an unspoken conspiracy at the underground level; underground rules. This is a projection of their own desire to make more than one set of rules. This is due to the confusion between equal results and equal rights.
If you look at the Olympics, each sport has its own set of rules that applies right down to the youth level; 100 Meter dash. Although millions of children will dream of having a gold medal in the Olympics, it comes down to years of practice, ability and drive to even approach that point. Those who do reach the gold, are admired the world over. They are not resented due to some abstraction of injustice unless you are racist. The world does not see the need for the rules to be modified so all children get a medal. This will lead to a backlash, because this will not reflect equal rights, but liberal cronyism.
Care to give an actual real-world example of where liberalism confuses equal rights and equal results?
And are you talking about US liberalism or liberalism as understood in Europe?
That's the distinction between 'classical liberals' (liberals in the European sense) and 'social liberals' (liberalism in the American sense). Here's what I wrote in post #74:
"I think that American 'liberals' most closely approximate European 'social democrats'. Their argument is basically that in order to exercise the individual freedom that liberals value, people need to have the means to do so. Hence the government should have a strong and at times intrusive role in ensuring that everyone has equal opportunity, economic equality and so on. That's led to a new 20th century thing called 'social liberalism' and it's the ideology behind the welfare state, both here in the US and in Europe.
In more extreme cases, it can veer very close to socialism. Not so much in the sense of government ownership of everything, but in the sense of government control of everything in hopes of shaping desired outcomes through grand social engineering."
But that slides past the catch, which was the accusation that "liberals" confuse equal rights (includes access to the means) with equal results (measured accomplishment).
The strong and intrusive role of government in providing equal access to means implies nothing, in itself, about equal outcomes. That "liberals" have substituted a demand for equal outcomes (inherently oppressive and abusive of superior ability) for their cover story of equal rights (inherently liberating and supporting of superior ability) is among the canards of the wingnut media operations in the US. It's the crux of the matter, in the ongoing attempts to redefine "liberal" and thereby make political reasoning and meaningful communication more difficult in the US.
And this is an example of a conservative judge. Some may think its 'liberal' or the left but when you rack up enough experience with liberals and conservatives, you learn they each have a certain flavor and ways of operating/thinking.
Conservatives tend to be very 'liberal' when it comes to the most corrupt offenses. They also care more about the letter of the law rather than the meaning behind it or its intent. What better way to manipulate it.
Here I continue to disagree. If somebody is racist or not is a private opinion, as long as he is not using violence against those of the wrong race it should not matter at all. In a classical liberal state, at least. In the modern American liberal state he is a subhuman, once he is a racist, and should be imprisoned for hate speech or so, at least this is the direction of the development.
If the majority of the public is racist, it can do, in a democracy, a lot of bad things to the minority. And often does such things. Privatizing all the roads of a whole town, to allow the creation of a whole town as a big gated community, harassment against a few remaining blacks in the town close to but not reaching the level of actual violence would be perfectly legal in a democracy. But, as explained, this privatization would be problematic from point of view of libertarian theory. Thus, libertarian theory provides better protection than democracy.
That in reality there was, additionally, violence, illegal even according to the formal law, but not persecuted because police and courts have liked that too, is a historical fact which is quite irrelevant for discussing principles of libertarian vs. democratic theory.
This is, again, your variant of fascism. Forbidding harmless things, justified that if you allow these harmless things, these evil people would do real crimes. Despite the fact that nobody proposes to legalize these real crimes.
Yes. So what? A sundown town with public roads allowed for whites only clearly violates the basic principle of equality, thus, it is irrelevant for the discussion about liberal/libertarian principles.
Anti-Semitism, as long as it is opinion only, is not even a crime. Or should not be in a liberal state. What was wrong was incarcerating Jews, and this was the point where you have given an acceptance of some typical fascist crimes - incarceration of innocent people, based on statistics about their criminality. Your only objection to this crime was that it was not based on good statistics. But for European liberals, it is a crime even if justified by correct statistics.
This is fascism, in its pure form. Because it is an inherently non-liberal, fascistic principle. Imprisonment, as any intentional violence, can be justified only based on personal guilt, not on statistics.
They may be somehow similar - all human actions are similar, as actions made by human beings - but justified on a completely different base.
It looks like you are unable to get this point, namely that principles matter.
Yes. This is an example that you don't get the point. You don't accept that principles matter.
Of course, numbers make a difference for me. If only one person hates me, I couldn't care less, if everybody hates me I have a problem. But this is not a base for organizing a liberal society. In a liberal society, either you have the right to hate me - then you have the right even all together to hate me - or not, in this case even the lone hater would violate my rights.
You corrected your own strawman. The numbers are your point, they have never been in my interest, see above.
Because this is imho not a matter at all. I have identified some problems, and privatization is a problem (a typical common good problem btw, which democracy as usual solves with majority rule, violating the rights of the minority).
Once you accept privatization, you accept some sort of rights violation. And in this case, the size of these rights violations matters.
But don't forget: There is a way to create a gated community without any rights violation, because the community simply buys a whole piece of land, and builds its internal roads itself, from the start on private land. Thus, no privatization happens. And in principle this method would be costly but everybody could, in principle, live in such a new build gated community.
No. Imprisonment is something completely different. It excludes me from everywhere except the cell. Or the ghetto. There is a whole world outside, with several continents. No nation has control over all of them. So, even if a whole nation would like to exclude me, there would be an essential difference.
Those send to Australia - were they forbidden to leave Australia, or simply not allowed to return into other parts of the Empire? This is the conceptual difference between a big prison and exclusion from the community.
And here we have the same conceptual difference: Was it possible for those living in one black area to leave it - for the purpose of visiting another black area, or the purpose of leaving America completely? If not, it is imprisonment. If yes, it was exclusion from the white community.
No. A liberal government would - as part of the justification of a government - have to provide some infrastructure for travel. This infrastructure should be, given that the government is liberal, open for everybody. So, if the black areas have connection to these government infrastructure, they are not imprisoned, but free.
You are replying to my posting. Neither privatization nor democracy have anything to do with the US situation I chose for example. Neither are involved.
Of course. But in this case (the sundown towns, etc) we have them denying rights and liberties, by force, and so it does matter.
I do accept that they matter. Yours are bad, was the point. They justify tyranny, and contradict their own expressed precepts, when invoked in reality. That matters a lot.
You recognized that yourself, in the example of the locked cell being a denial of the civil liberties and rights of the person locked in it. Principles have to account for physical circumstances.
It is physically possible to escape from a cell, to leave a ghetto. There is a whole world outside them - just as there was and would be a whole world outside the black areas of the US south and sundown town areas. Nevertheless, the civil rights and civil liberties of black people were and would be denied and diminished - compared with white people - by the establishment of racist white communities across large areas of the landscape.
In fact, in physical reality, those things were and are harmful - not harmless - in the US. Seriously and significantly harmful. This is the reality input your theory fails to handle.
There's nothing in my post about "statistics". For example, if the anti-Semites had been correct that the local Jewish population regularly gathered together, as a group, in ritual and religious killing of goy babies, engaged in blood sacrifice of their neighbors's children as a group, as was claimed, some kind of imprisonment (or other exclusion, at least) of Jews would have been justified. The reason it was not justified is that the Jews - as a group - did not in fact do anything like that.
Meanwhile, your confusion remains: violent anti-Semitism is not itself fascism at all, "pure" or otherwise. The monarchs of old Europe, the Catholic Church, the Stalinist government of Russia, acted in just that manner on occasion - monarchy, theocracy, and Stalinist communism, are not fascism.
In the sense that it is possible to free oneself from a prison cell, yes. "Impossible" is a strong claim. In fact it was difficult and dangerous - much more difficult, much more dangerous - than for white people.
And keep it open, physically usable, etc. Exactly. Hence the forbidding of exclusively white racist communities in the US.
The question was, roughly, if there is something wrong with libertarian/European liberal theory. You claim that some US history or so shows this. This makes no sense, given that what happened in the US history is not close to what is prescribed by libertarian theory, so that it is irrelevant.
It could be relevant, if what has happened there could be, with some modification, happen without violation of libertarian principles. Here I have clarified that to create some gated communities would be possible - on completely private land - without any violation of libertarian principles. Some other would be possible with the minor violations of libertarian principles which are typical and completely legal for privatization in a democracy. If you don't want to discuss the related problems, fine. In this case, it remains to discuss why creating white gated communities on completely private ground would somehow harm black people.
Given that, see above, all what is justified completely by libertarian principles are gated communities on private ground, it remains for you to show that this somehow justified tyranny. All blacks have the same rights as today, given that the ground is already private, thus, they have no right to enter anyway even today.
And they do.
No. From the actual situation where would be no transformation to such a state possible without violating libertarian principles. So, libertarian theory in itself is fine.
There is. Once you use phrases like "regularly", or "local Jewish population" (how many of them?) or the even more diffuse "as a group", you do not claim that all
Jews do such things. Which would be required if you would like to imprison them simply for being Jews in agreement with European liberal principles.
It does not matter. Feel free to choose what you are more comfortable with - supporting fascism or violent anti-Semitism, in pure or other versions. Anyway you support some anti-liberal (European version) ideology, which is the relevant point.
What matters from a legal point of view (libertarian theory is legal theory) is not if something is physically possible for me, but if other people try to prevent me from doing it. So, if somebody closes the door of the cell to prevent me from leaving, he is using criminal violence against me. If whites use violence against blacks, who simply try to travel from one black area to another one, and do this with the intention that the blacks have to be unable to leave their area, they are using criminal violence against them.
No. These are different things. The gated communities can create their own private infrastructure on their own private property, and then it would not be the business of the government to invade this private property. What has to remain open for all citizens is only what is public ownership, what is created with taxpayers money.
Racism judges people by the skin color instead of by a better standard, which is good and evil. There are good people of all colors and there are evil people of all colors. The racist POV will judge a group by their lowest common denominator; evil, and then assign these attributes to the entire race. The result is the data presented is true, but the data set is not the whole data set.
For example, the statement below is true, but it is not the whole truth. It lumps all whites with the evil actions of a few, thereby concluding all whites are racists. I don't live in a gated community. The reality is, some white people will do this, but more whites do not do this. The entire data set is a different curve.
A better way to phrase this is if evil whites do these things, we should not persecute all whites, since most do not do this. If we separated the whites into good and evil then we can isolate a separate curve just for the evil whites, and just not punish or shake down all.
The same is true of the blacks. Crime statistics show a high rate of crime, especially by black males. This is an evil aspect of the black population. The left will justify this to lump all under the same struggle. This is not the whole data set, since there are far more good blacks, who don't do this. If you react in a defensive way against the evil blacks; security gates, this is not racist. Racism appears when the correlation goes beyond the divide of good and evil, and tries to justify these actions as belong to everyone, including the good.
The way to end racism is for the good people of all races, to work together so they can isolate the bad apples in their group, whose data appears to be weighted too heavily by racists and racist social policies. This victimizes the good people in all races, whose data is not counted the same. If we did a cross section of all races in America, these are more good than bad; silenced majority. They are silenced because they are not seen as good, but rather are lumped into diversity pockets based on their evil data points.
The opposite can also happen where we judge a group by the good and thereby created the illusion that bad of the group come under the same umbrella. If criminals loot during a riot, evil is lumped with the good, so nothing is done. This is liberalism. All whites are lumped by the evil among them, while all blacks are lumped by the good among them. Or all males are lumped by the evils and all females by their goods. This is how the minds of racist and sexist do their data analysis. Goto data analysis says there are good and evil in all groups and we should not reward the bad and punished the good, based on poor data analysis.
The question was whether there was something wrong with your theory, which you labeled "libertarian".
Yours, above, did not. But we have progress:
You have now narrowed things down to the point that you can simply agree, with me, that the US government forbidding voluntary white racist communities was in complete accord with liberal and libertarian principles (some completely private white racist landholdings, demonstrated to have no public ownership or use or inconvenience, were not forbidden).
What I pointed out was that the Nazis made that claim - that all Jews, acting as a group, because they were Jews, acting together and knowing what they and each other were doing, each participating according to their role in the group, did x y and z bad things - and had they been correct, in fact, in physical reality, they would have been justified in excluding Jews from their communities.
On liberal and libertarian principles.
The question was a matter of fact.
That is false. I don't.
He is committing violence against you even if he is just closing the door to keep you out of his town. It's not his motive, but the physical consequences of his actions, that afflict you.
Their intentions are not involved. Their consequences of their actions are what afflict black people. That is why these oppressive actions are forbidden, and not the intentions whatever they may be.
Yet another argument for the moral and ethical virtues of taxation.
But I digress - the blacks oppressed by the establishment of US voluntary white racist communities would not be citizens of the communities involved, would pay no taxes into the community infrastructure public or private, and would have no ownership rights to any of it. Nevertheless they would have their civil rights and liberties severely curtailed, even denied. So your theory is faced with a choice: abandon the defense of equal rights and liberties for all, or allow government to forbid voluntary white racist communities, in situations such as the US faces.
I don't know the details of those laws. But judging from the cases where Christian fundamentalists are forced to work as slaves for gays even if they refuse to make contracts with them, which is certainly in gross violation of libertarian principles, I doubt that laws with similar intent are more compatible with libertarian ideas.
They did not. They were excluding Jews because of their race, independent of their behavior. In part, they were excluding those converted to Christianity, and even German war heros. So, no, they made no claims that all those have behaved in a whatever evil way. But, ok, this is a side issue, once you even don't know Nazi propaganda, one cannot make conclusions about you beliefs based on your claims about it.
Only if I have property rights there.
No, it is the other way around. Taxation is theft. But if the money robbed from taxpayers would be used only in favor of some groups, this would be too obvious even for the sheeple. So, to hide the character of taxation, it is necessary to hide the fact that only parts of the population are winners of this robbery. To allow all the sheeple use what is build with these taxpayers money is part of this hiding strategy.
So this claims that some "civil rights" and "liberties" exist for using completely private property of other people?
Once according to libertarian theory nobody has any right or liberties to do anything on private property of other people, without their voluntary permission, I have to abandon only rights and libertiers which are non-existing for all people, thus, without any problem with equal rights and liberties for all.
That depends on the physical facts. Take your jail cell, above: everything outside of it is owned by somebody else - so you have no right to leave?
Doubt all you want, in your ignorance. Doesn't change the facts. (And doesn't make paid contractors "slaves", either).
Yes, they did make those claims. You can read all about them in Nazi propaganda from the time - the "blood libel", the whole shot.
Of course. We know that for sure, and can prove it, because their behavioral claims were false. Had their behavioral claims been true, they could have been excluding Jews on that basis.
Dumbest one yet.
In the US, the situation was (and would be again) that white people kept rights and liberties despite voluntary white racist communities, but black people lost them - so some people had rights and liberties that others did not, including very basic and significant ones such as travel.
This is the old and well-known problem of access to enclaves. It has a standard solution, namely rights to enter end leave the property. Which way one has the right to use is established by tradition.
A forced contract is not a contract. Paid or not does not matter, the slaveowner also has to give the slaves some food.
In this case, please provide proofs that they had really made behavioral claims about the behavior of all Jews without exceptions even for Jews converted to Christianity and the WW I heroes among them.
They made, without doubt, a lot of claims about what horrible behavior one has to expect from them in general, as well as about the racial inferiority of all of them. But none of above would justify any incarceration of Jews for being Jews.
Again, this makes only sense if it would not be about property rights on private property, but about property rights on public property - which they would loose if that property would be privatized.
And if, say, the racist town would have a ring road, where blacks would be allowed to travel, their right to travel would be reduced only in a minor way. So, even the privatization would usually not lead to an essential violation of the rights of blacks.
And if "the tradition" is that black people have no ways to have such rights, while the enclaves and their influences cover the landscape and sequester valuable resources of various kinds, black people have been denied rights and liberties - unequally. That happened, in the US.
No, he doesn't. He only provides food in his own interest, voluntarily and not by obligation (unless some government intervenes).
Paid or not paid, obligated or not obligated, temporary or permanent, voluntarily adopted role or coercively assigned role - physical circumstances matter.
In reality, black people lost their rights to the use of public property that was never privatized. And they would again, by the same mechanisms of exclusion.
If reality doesn't make sense to you, it's not reality that needs to change.
Depends on where the hospital is, and the airport, and the river, and the jobsites, and the gas stations, and the grocery stores, and so forth. Some privately owned, some publicly owned.
Give up on the fantasy hypotheticals. There is an actual situation in front of you, as an example of a glitch in your theories (which has also been described to you in abstract - you are making necessary assumptions about physical reality that may not always hold).
Yes, but the actual tradition is that all US citizens have equal rights for actual US public property. I don't have any such rights on US territory because I'm not a US citizen. But, of course, I don't whine about my rights and liberties. I have no property rights and related liberties on US soil.
The point being? I know that a lot of horrible things have happened in the US, like genocide of the natives.
So, we have learned now the new American liberalism: Involuntary word (usually named slavery) is fine, as long as the slaves are paid. Fine. Yet another difference between European liberal and American liberal.
If American people regularly violate US law, denying blacks the rights they have according to US law, that's not nice, but so what? How this is related to the question how liberal/libertarian law should look like?
They should have access to their property, even if it is only shared property. So they should have access to publicly owned hospitals and so on. But not to private property.
Hm. If you have an inherently lawless population, there is, of course, no reason to care about laws at all, they will be ignored anyway. The winner is that guy with the gun. So what, the real life in that lawless state is not my problem, because it is not my country. I have heard enough horrible things about these lawless regions of our world that I feel more safe in some Middle East dictatorships. But I have never planned to discuss what to do in regions without a state of law, like Afghanistan, Somalia or the US Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. So, what would be the point of presenting me the actual lawless situation in these unfortunate regions?
If you, instead, are interested in discussing the differences between European and American liberalism, then, please, face the fact that above are about such fantasy hypotheticals like a state of law. And the discussion is what should be the laws in this fantasy land. Not? (Ok, good liberal law takes into account side effects which are related with criminals violating these laws. But this is, nonetheless, a different question, because it is about criminals who have to care about the law, because it is enforced, so that they have to take countermeasures.)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.