Originally posted by Newjak
So you shouldn't address the problem that minorities have disadvantages placed on them from a systemic racism problem?
Not by quota, no. There's simply no way to balance the scales in a fair and impartial way.
Yale's controversy over asian applicants came about because of quota's.
Is the divide between the believers of privilege and people who don't think privilege is a legitimate construct is because the lens each side is looking through ?
The people who endorse the idea of privilege seem to think more on an aggregate/collectivistic level, whereas the people who don't endorse it as a construct are looking at things on an individual level ?
It's easy for an anti privilege person to say they know a poor white guy, therefore privilege is a bad metric, when someone endorsing the idea of privilege say whites have privilege.
Personally, everything i believe is underpinned by individualism - from my views on economics, to interpersonal relationships, therefore I think the idea of privilege is a very unsophisticated heuristic for judging anything.
Thoughts ?
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Is the divide between the believers of privilege and people who don't think privilege is a legitimate construct is because the lens each side is looking through ?The people who endorse the idea of privilege seem to think more on an aggregate/collectivistic level, whereas the people who don't endorse it as a construct are looking at things on an individual level ?
It's easy for an anti privilege person to say they know a poor white guy, therefore privilege is a bad metric, when someone endorsing the idea of privilege say whites have privilege.
Personally, everything i believe is underpinned by individualism - from my views on economics, to interpersonal relationships, therefore I think the idea of privilege is a very unsophisticated heuristic for judging anything.
Thoughts ?
I think that is how it often plays out nowadays. If you are more inclined to look at processes on the level of systems you start to see differences in statistical treatment. People who think more collectivist may be more likely to look at certain aspects of human life in that way.
But I don't think it would be necessary, I think even someone with very deeply held individualistic believes can look at systemic treatment and then judge it more from the individual level.
To be honest if you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged they are really pretty similar narrative to those of real world oppression, in that Howard Roark and John Galt basically complain about the privileges that the stupid, incompetent and collectivist receive over them, and are willing to fight for their presumed rights that they derived from hyper-individualist thinking (through terrorism on the one hand and a labour strike on the other).
Originally posted by Artol
I think that is how it often plays out nowadays. If you are more inclined to look at processes on the level of systems you start to see differences in statistical treatment. People who think more collectivist may be more likely to look at certain aspects of human life in that way.But I don't think it would be necessary, I think even someone with very deeply held individualistic believes can look at systemic treatment and then judge it more from the individual level.
To be honest if you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged they are really pretty similar narrative to those of real world oppression, in that Howard Roark and John Galt basically complain about the privileges that the stupid, incompetent and collectivist receive over them, and are willing to fight for their presumed rights that they derived from hyper-individualist thinking (through terrorism on the one hand and a labour strike on the other).
Libertarians do think on a systemic level, which is why praxeology is a deductive science, like math or logic, and find that state interference is, on a system wide level, very detrimental to everyone but the political class, and their underlings aka the voters or companies who receive hand outs for keeping the political class in power.
The masses only have mob like power in a democratic system. Think two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
In a free market, every INDIVIDUAL is a sovereign consumer, thus their decisions are based on what provides the most value.
The entire point of both those books is to elevate the individual to the divine. If you do this everything works better on a systemic vlevel.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Libertarians do think on a systemic level, which is why praxeology is a deductive science, like math or logic, and find that state interference is, on a system wide level, very detrimental to everyone but the political class, and their underlings aka the voters or companies who receive hand outs for keeping the political class in power.The masses only have mob like power in a democratic system. Think two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
In a free market, every INDIVIDUAL is a sovereign consumer, thus their decisions are based on what provides the most value.
The entire point of both those books is to elevate the individual to the divine. If you do this everything works better on a systemic vlevel.
You hit on a lot of different points again. Imo, the state is often a vehicle of corruption, but it is also sometimes at tool that correct excessive market imbalances. I'm not an adherent of praxeology myself, I don't believe that it derives much of value for real world economics or sociology. At best a free market system can show what provides the most value in the current setting of imbalances, but like I discussed before, soon there would be group building that would curtail individual freedoms.
Originally posted by Artol
You hit on a lot of different points again. Imo, the state is often a vehicle of corruption, but it is also sometimes at tool that correct excessive market imbalances. I'm not an adherent of praxeology myself, I don't believe that it derives much of value for real world economics or sociology. At best a free market system can show what provides the most value in the current setting of imbalances, but like I discussed before, soon there would be group building that would curtail individual freedoms.
... So you don't think humans create goals then seek to fulfill them ?
Originally posted by Artol
I think that is how it often plays out nowadays. If you are more inclined to look at processes on the level of systems you start to see differences in statistical treatment. People who think more collectivist may be more likely to look at certain aspects of human life in that way.But I don't think it would be necessary, I think even someone with very deeply held individualistic believes can look at systemic treatment and then judge it more from the individual level.
To be honest if you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged they are really pretty similar narrative to those of real world oppression, in that Howard Roark and John Galt basically complain about the privileges that the stupid, incompetent and collectivist receive over them, and are willing to fight for their presumed rights that they derived from hyper-individualist thinking (through terrorism on the one hand and a labour strike on the other).
Everyone thinks in terms of collectivism, until the find something hurts them personally. Then suddenly they become an individualist.
Originally posted by cdtm
Everyone thinks in terms of collectivism, until the find something hurts them personally. Then suddenly they become an individualist.
Sure, people are motivated by their own interests and desires. The interesting thing about communities and societies is that by working together and giving up some parts of your individual freedom the return can be much larger than if you solely act to your short term advantage in all situations.
Originally posted by Artol
Sure, people are motivated by their own interests and desires. The interesting thing about communities and societies is that by working together and giving up some parts of your individual freedom the return can be much larger than if you solely act to your short term advantage in all situations.
Yes, that's called the division of labor, but nothing about it involves giving up freedom. It has to do with factoring in the disutility of labor and deciding that's an okay variable, as it's much easier than taking on the risk of an entrepreneur. What you described is exactly what's called for under a free market.
Notice how you didn't say that people come together, then get bossed around by a government, then do really good.
P.s. https://mises.org/wire/division-labor-very-core-economic-growth
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Yes, that's called the division of labor, but nothing about it involves giving up freedom. It has to do with factoring in the disutility of labor and deciding that's an okay variable, as it's much easier than taking on the risk of an entrepreneur. What you described is exactly what's called for under a free market.Notice how you didn't say that people come together, then get bossed around by a government, then do really good.
P.s. https://mises.org/wire/division-labor-very-core-economic-growth
I do agree that there should be more democratic control of how people are being ruled, and of course there should be strong structures to protect many individual rights, but I do think it makes sense for a community to require anyone within the community (or if you want in the community's area) to adhere to certain rules under the threat of some form of social of even physical repercussions.
Originally posted by Artol
I do agree that there should be more democratic control of how people are being ruled, and of course there should be strong structures to protect many individual rights, but I do think it makes sense for a community to require anyone within the community (or if you want in the community's area) to adhere to certain rules under the threat of some form of social of even physical repercussions.
Property rights is the inherent foundational structure that props up every other right and humans have them regardless of any document.
The constitution was written, not as the creation of property rights, but the codification of them. This made property rights into policy, transcending principle.
Communities always have and always will and should self govern. Sweden is a prime example of this.
I'm not opposed to rules or incentive structures.
I am opposed to incentive structures based on force, which is the case with the state.
In a sexual context this should make sense.
Mutual consent = free market
Rape = coercion of the state
In mutually consenting sexual encounters you don't get to do whatever you want, to draw this example to your community standards point, you have to follow rules or etiquette mutually agreed upon.
Therefore mutual consent sex encounters are an example of the market at work, there is no need for governmental interference in the bedroom, why do you think it should be any different in the economy ?
I see mere property rights as unjust, as they vastly privilege those who were born earlier and those who have through whatever means accumulated a lot of property. That's why I believe we have to have mechanisms to make the distribution of property (or wealth or capital, however you want to call it) more equal. I also think we need to work to create equal opportunities that the market mechanism are unable to provide.
I agree on the constitution, it was written to preserve the property rights of some of the American elites against their competition of some other American elites and English Colonial Interests. That is the case both for Southern Slave holders and Northern Merchants and Industrialists. It is a document designed to protect these elites from losing their status and from ensuring that those who do not have property, and the children of those that do not have property, do not threaten the interests of the ruling elite and their property.
All human interaction is in some way force. Force is a reality of human life, and we should decide which types of force we accept and which ones we do not accept, and what mechanisms we have to ensure that our values are preserved. I assume you are a proponent of the non-aggression principle? That is one way to decide which force you see as justified and which not, and that can certainly be part of a more complex set of rules that govern the forces guiding human life.
I don't see a "free market" as free of coercion. If all public land has been privatized, if your only option for survival is to sell your labor, that is not a free choice, that is a form of force, a form of coercion. If you want to get closer to a free market you should develop something that gives people similar amounts of bargaining power, that puts them in positions where they can really assert their own free will, rather than having a fake choice between doing what the more powerful actor demands or suffering immense consequences like starvation and death.
Originally posted by Artol
I see mere [b]property rights as unjust, as they vastly privilege those who were born earlier and those who have through whatever means accumulated a lot of property. That's why I believe we have to have mechanisms to make the distribution of property (or wealth or capital, however you want to call it) more equal. I also think we need to work to create equal opportunities that the market mechanism are unable to provide.I agree on the constitution, it was written to preserve the property rights of some of the American elites against their competition of some other American elites and English Colonial Interests. That is the case both for Southern Slave holders and Northern Merchants and Industrialists. It is a document designed to protect these elites from losing their status and from ensuring that those who do not have property, and the children of those that do not have property, do not threaten the interests of the ruling elite and their property.
All human interaction is in some way force. Force is a reality of human life, and we should decide which types of force we accept and which ones we do not accept, and what mechanisms we have to ensure that our values are preserved. I assume you are a proponent of the non-aggression principle? That is one way to decide which force you see as justified and which not, and that can certainly be part of a more complex set of rules that govern the forces guiding human life.
I don't see a "free market" as free of coercion. If all public land has been privatized, if your only option for survival is to sell your labor, that is not a free choice, that is a form of force, a form of coercion. If you want to get closer to a free market you should develop something that gives people similar amounts of bargaining power, that puts them in positions where they can really assert their own free will, rather than having a fake choice between doing what the more powerful actor demands or suffering immense consequences like starvation and death. [/B]
I really want to pull this apart slowly, define our terms/premises then go from there.
I think what I mean by property is different than what you mean. What is private property according to you ? I want to save the other stuff for later because it really matters if we can agree on what property is.
Great post btw.
In essence what I mean when saying property is the right of ownership and authority over an object, idea, entity or land.
So in terms of private property it may be the right to use, trade, and possibly destroy an object at ones own discretion.
It gets more complex of course, there are different extents of the rights associated with property, different mechanisms in which these rights are ensured, there are different ways ownership can work, on a individual level for example or a communal one. I am also an adherent of the distinction between private and personal property. But I hope as a basic working definition the one I gave gives some sense of what I mean.
Originally posted by Artol
In essence what I mean when saying property is the right of ownership and authority over an object, idea, entity or land.It gets more complex of course, there are different extends of the rights associated with property, different mechanisms in which these rights are ensured, there are different ways ownership can work, on a individual level for example or a communal one. I am also an adherent of the distinction between private and personal property. But I hope as a basic working definition the one I gave gives some sense of what I mean.
Does your definition of property rights extend to your body ? Because mine does.
P.s. rothbard said it better, as always
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Does your definition of property rights extend to your body ? Because mine does.P.s. rothbard said it better, as always
I would say in some sense it does, but that the human body and mind goes beyond property rights in the value that it should receive, at least within my moral system.
Perhaps as an example, if you own a hammer you can trade this hammer to someone else and then they become the owner of this hammer, I don't think that it should be permitted to trade your body to someone else and become the property to another person. So I see the human body as a form of property imbued with some rights that go beyond the rights of other forms of property.
Originally posted by Artol
I would say in some sense it does, but that the human body and mind goes beyond property rights in the value that it should receive, at least within my moral system.Perhaps as an example, if you own a hammer you can trade this hammer to someone else and then they become the owner of this hammer, I don't think that it should be permitted to trade your body to someone else and become the property to another person. So I see the human body as a form of property imbued with some rights that go beyond the rights of other forms of property.
So do you think bdsm is immoral ? Or indentured servitude ? Prostitution ?