(Original post by Aeolus)
What I was getting at is that generally a libertarian will put their faith in the market, in the same general way that a certain type of socialist will put their faith in the state. There is little to no compromise and it just strikes a me as a little irrational. Of course it is in perhaps the majority of cases influenced by ideology and moral belief, and that is why I fell you can give each a derogatory comparison to religion. Reason dictates the imperfections of each system and I would think one would infer a combination. It is akin to fixing a puncture with only the pump because the new inner tube cannot inflate itself.
With respect, I don't know why you keep on making the assertion that the free-market is some mysterious system where one has to cross-his-fingers and have faith. At least, you're no longer calling it "a perfect system" ... which is a remarkable step-forward. But I thought I made this whole point clear in my last post when I said:
"My second point regarding the overwhelming evidence of the improvements in the standards of living was meant to flow from the above statement regarding the free-market. I was trying to explain my position wrt the free-market and why I think it is beneficial."
There is an enormous amount of literature that indicate that societies that have a free-market tend to have better standards of living, than those with central planning. No "faith" is needed. I wouldn't be arguing for this position if I had to rely on "faith".
I shouldn't really have to acknowledge it and I have never denied it. Well whether inequality is good or bad is a big debate. You obviously think that equality is good in some cases I would just like things to be a little more equal than you would.
I am not sure this means. You're being incredibly vague. But nevermind.
I would endorse a system of rights based on more abstract Rawlsian principles. I reject any deontological conception of rights on the same grounds that most people do.
I think the social contract is as flawed as natural rights, but that's my opinion.
What go you mean by logical? This is all entirely normative. Given previous injustice I feel that society ought to be run via an almagamation of both systems so as to balance the imperfections and attain the most advantageous result according to my own intepretations and conclusions.
Logical means following from A to B to C. It means "making sense" in the usual sense. Logical is simply an adjective. What is normative about that?
Look Alex. You are the person who brought up an injustice - property theft - as some sort of basis for your taxation system. You're the guy who keeps on saying it. You made me think about it for a few days, and then get back to you. When I try to see how "logical" the connection is, I can't seem to make one. How does imposing a tax on everybody on society deal with a historic social injustice? It simply doesn't. You see some injustice in society, you then want to redistribute the wealth, and "social injustice" would appear to justify that. It just doesn't! Syllogistically this is nonsense. So, instead why don't you just say "I want to redistribute wealth" and we'll leave all this malarkey about social injustice alone.
Urgh, yes I got the reference and didn't take it seriously for a reason. I could quite easily compare property rights to slavery. You are born chained to certain areas of the earths surface forbidden to walk upon the others on pain of potentially violent punishment.
...But I don't. Because there are far more reasonable ways to conduct a discussion.
By all means make the comparison that property "rights" is slavery. You may have a point on an abstract level, I suppose, but practically speaking, people aren't forbidden from moving on other people's properties otherwise they wouldn't acquire the capacity to inflict "potentially violent punishment". To be able to do that, you have to trade
It's a shame you're not taking my reservations seriously. I have seen you compare other TSRians and their systems as being slavish, based on theft etc ... but you clearly can't take criticism yourself! I know you understand what vicarious redemption is, and I am sure you can make the connection of (1) born in sin (2) having to constantly be punished for a crime one never committed etc ... with your tax system as a means of dealing with the "social injustice." I made my point about how on an abstract and practical level it is a repulsive system, and since you don't wish to refute it, I think I'll move on.
No because given the reality it is utterly unrealistic and ridiculous. It is not as simple as evil vs good or anything like that. It is accepting the past and its legacy on the present and trying to rectify any injustice that one perceives according to ones own moral conscience. We disagree on a moral level so it is hardly worth debating the complexities of our economics.
What do you mean by "we disagree on a moral level"? For the umpteenth time, I said I don't like theft and think it is something that ought (and would) be rectified. I am assuming you don't agree with theft? That must surly mean we agree on a moral level with regards to the subject matter? Right.
Moreover, you're idea of justice is flawed. One doesn't "accept the past and present" if one wishes to "rectify any injustice". The idea of justice is *not* accepting land theft. Perhaps, come to think of it, we do have different morals. I disagree with theft, and you don't mind it (if you can get to put in place redistributive taxation on everybody forever).
Yes but I don't really care about all of that. As far as I am concerned the legacy of that orginal iniquty is something that should be addressed. If it means taxing those who are more free than others in society thanks to material wealth also a consequence of the legacy then so be it.
In the same way that I would oppose a hereditary succession of absolute monarchs who have inherited their property legitimately and without force or coercion on their parts. The fact that it is the staus quo means nothing to me.
Yes, you have made it clear that the actual crime is irrelevant to you. It doesn't even matter if it happened.
Out of interest, two questions:
(1) You said, above, "As far as I am concerned the legacy of that orginal iniquty is something that should be addressed". How is it being addressed with your taxation system? I have tried to go through a step-by-step process of discussing justice in terms of land theft, and you don't care about it. So, how do you even begin to try to remedy the problem with such an attitude?
(2) Let's assume there is a family whose family have never stolen any land. You'd be punishing them. Do you care about that when it comes to justice?
I'm sorry it took a long time, I have just dismissed rather alot of it because it simply does not apply. I do not subscribe to any ideas of good/evil justice when it comes righting the wrongs of the past. That is probably because we disagree on a moraly fundamental level. There is not much more to say really
You clearly do "subscribe to any ideas of good/evil justice when it comes righting the wrongs of the past". I have seen you blog about the Vatican and anti-Semitism, and discuss Saddam Hussein and various other things in the religious forum. You accuse several libertarians of being on the side of evil & tyranny for supporting private property despite it's origin. And so, I decide to think about it, and respond in a way that challenges the precept of justice only to be told that good/bad don't matter! I am not sure if I am still debating the famous Aeolus!
Liberty is not my main focus here. Freedom is. I am at perfect liberty to jump out of my bedroom window, flap my arms and fly. Yet I am not free to do so because I do not posess the means. Liberty is overrated.
... in your humble opinion ....
Thats just ribbish. because you only have private property rights when you have a state. It is entirely possible to bypass property and still retain rights to free speech.
We'll discuss this another time. One subject at a time, Alex. Could you deal with the two questions above.