Thick and Thin Libertarianism Part X

Juan:

Again, are you playing dumb ? As a matter of fact, and by definition, racists believe that SOME people are ALL equal in some ways - for instance, a white racist believes that ALL WHITES are superior in some way to ALL BLACKS, or maybe to ALL THE REST of humanity.

That's not necessarily true.  The belief that one group is superior to another group in no way implies the belief that all members of a given group are equal.  It's quite possible to make a generalization, even an accurate one, about a group without claiming that all members of that group are equal.  Blacks have darker skin than whites.  This does not imply that all blacks have the same hue, nor does it imply that all white have the same hue.

Further, racism is not necessarily collectivist.  The redneck hermit in the hut with a shotgun, ready to shoot any darkie that comes along, is certainly a racist, but certainly not a collectivist.

The 'redneck' (hehe) is a collectivist in the sense that he sees individuals as members of an arbitrary group (or 'collective') defined by skin color or a similar nonsensical criterion.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Brainpolice:

They do constitute oppression once we put them into an interpersonal context. You're correct that the mere fact that someone is starving isn't oppression, it's a negative condition. However, if we put it in an interpersonal context in which the starving person has some money that they are willing to use to buy food, but all of the buisinesses that they try to patronize don't allow them to buy food simply because of the color of their skin, that is oppression. Is it a formal rights violation? No. But it is oppression in the sense that one is explicitly contributing to someone else's negative condition.

Utterly, unequivocally, and completely false. They aren't contributing one bit to any oppression.

Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no? You're "contributing" to making them worse-off (in their estimation) by not playing. So, you must say yes or else you're a hypocrite.

Yeah--it's time for you to re-think your position.

 

Here are the first two random definitions of oppression I found

1)  to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
2) to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon

And just glancing at the wikipedia page you can tell there is a very broad use of the term.

There is no reason to think that at least some use of the word "oppression" fits in context. 

I think this comes into play when looking at this from an individualist level, rather than a more libertarian one.  I would not doubt for a second if I was in some odd situation where a group of people was dileberatly starving out me and my loved ones through some type of intentional malicious economic embargo that I was somehow forced to deal with, I would have no moral problem with any form of theft or revolt.

I think it would be silly to think many people would put up with that, and I also think it would be silly to think most peoples' moral compasses would find that kind of embargo action tolerable (assuming the embargo was very obviously deliberate and malicious).  I would also think any "objective" jury with half their wits and the tool of jury nullification would have a decent chance to rule in favor of the person inflicted with a malicious trade embargo.

Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no?  Looking through the way oppression could be used, I suppose it could.   If one uses the term "playing chess" in a more facetious or light weight matter, no it can't be oppressive just by the nature of the word.  I think all definations of oppression means there is some great weight involved.  There would have to be very high value to the chess game to use the word "oppression".

And to repeat Brainpolice: "distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue".  I think that is very key to any point he is trying to make.

Juan:

The 'redneck' (hehe) is a collectivist in the sense that he sees individuals as members of an arbitrary group (or 'collective') defined by skin color or a similar nonsensical criterion.

Or he hates everyone, but only shoots the dark ones.

 

Juan:

I wonder if you really don't understand what I'm saying or are playing dumb ?

Honestly I don't, you say libertarians must be individualists, but go on and collectivise.

Juan:

Again, are you playing dumb ? As a matter of fact, and by definition, racists believe that SOME people are ALL equal in some ways - for instance, a white racist believes that ALL WHITES are superior in some way to ALL BLACKS, or maybe to ALL THE REST of humanity.

That's not true at all, and doesn't even make sense. I've never read that all racists believe that all members of their race are equal, nor that all members of their race are superior in any one way to all members of another. So even if a racist white fellow did believe that all white people simply were superior than all black people at, say, ice hockey, it still doesn't follow that he would believe that all white people are equal at hockey, or anything. I'd say they make generalizations.

Juan:

In other words, your assertion "racists are quite aware that people aren't equal" is false. Racism by definition entails putting unequal people in some arbitrary group defined by arbitrary characteristics such as skin color.

That sentence actually agrees with what I said. If racism, by definition, entails putting unequal people in some arbitrary group then a racist, by definition, must believe that people are unequal.

Juan:

Are you collectivizing and making a general comment on what racists are aware of ?

If using the definition, even your defintion, is collectivising, then yes.

Juan:

And finally, I didn't say all racists try to rationalize coercion so don't put words in my mouth. I said that if Nitroadict can suggest that anarchist libertarians want to rationalize violence against racists, then it is fair to claim that non-anarchist racists are even more likely to use violence.

Juan:

You sounds as if saying that racists are not trying to rationalize coercion, and people who criticize racism are 'libruls' willing to use coercion to stop the racists (despite that the people who oppose racism are actually libertarian anarchists)

You absolutely did. Perhaps thats what you meant, but you didn't say that, you worded it poorly.

Dondoolee:

Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no?  Looking through the way oppression could be used, I suppose it could.   If one uses the term "playing chess" in a more facetious or light weight matter, no it can't be oppressive just by the nature of the word.  I think all definations of oppression means there is some great weight involved.  There would have to be very high value to the chess game to use the word "oppression".

If its to be taken loosely then the term oppression simply becomes empty, void of any serious meaning and implication, but then there really isn't any "nature of the word."

Dondoolee:

And to repeat Brainpolice: "distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue".  I think that is very key to any point he is trying to make.

The term "unvirtuous" comes to mind. Not helping a starving man is unvirtuous, not oppressive.

 

Angurse:

Honestly I don't, you say libertarians must be individualists, but go on and collectivise.

What (the hell) do you mean by 'collectivise' ?

That's not true at all, and doesn't even make sense. I've never read that all racists believe that all members of their race are equal, nor that all members of their race are superior in any one way to all members of another.

White racists, by definition believe that the white race is superior to other races. Same thing for Japanese racists who believe that they belong to the master race. Or nazis who believe that actually the 'aryans' are the master race. Or zionists who believe that jews are choosen by god. Or...you get the picture I hope ?

If racism, by definition, entails putting unequal people in some arbitrary group then a racist, by definition, must believe that people are unequal.

Again, are you confused, or pretending to be ?

Racism entails treating humans (who are all EQUALLY human) as if they were different in some fundamental way because of wholly accidental differences (skin color for instance)

A:

J:

Are you collectivizing and making a general comment on what racists are aware of ?

If using the definition, even your defintion, is collectivising, then yes.

What definition ? (you see, I can also make confusing remarks).

A:

J:

And finally, I didn't say all racists try to rationalize coercion so don't put words in my mouth. I said that if Nitroadict can suggest that anarchist libertarians want to rationalize violence against racists, then it is fair to claim that non-anarchist racists are even more likely to use violence.

J:

You sounds as if saying that racists are not trying to rationalize coercion, and people who criticize racism are 'libruls' willing to use coercion to stop the racists (despite that the people who oppose racism are actually libertarian anarchists)

You absolutely did. Perhaps thats what you meant, but you didn't say that, you worded it poorly.

I absolutely did what ?

Dondoolee:

I think it would be silly to think many people would put up with that, and I also think it would be silly to think most peoples' moral compasses would find that kind of embargo action tolerable (assuming the embargo was very obviously deliberate and malicious).  I would also think any "objective" jury with half their wits and the tool of jury nullification would have a decent chance to rule in favor of the person inflicted with a malicious trade embargo.

Please differentiate a "malicious" embargo with a non-malicious embargo.  Please also show how the effect on the victim of the former will be different from the other.  If such an embargo is 100% voluntary, which law will the jury nullify?

Juan:

Racism entails treating humans (who are all EQUALLY human) as if they were different in some fundamental way because of wholly accidental differences (skin color for instance)

The differences are not accidental; they are phenotypes that are present because the parents made a deliberate choice in breeding partners.  Race is a criteria employed by the overwhelming majority of breeding couples worldwide.  Racial outmarriage remains an outlier phenomenon.

Anyway, all the anti-racist eruptions on this thread really just boil down to the 'stunned whore' analysis, which was a great meme on iSteve a few months ago:

A Canadian stunned whore plays blackjack:

Dealer: 17.
Canadian stunned whore: Hit me.
Dealer: 18.
Canadian stunned whore: Hit me.
Dealer: 19.
Canadian stunned whore: Hit me.
Dealer: 20.
Canadian stunned whore: Hit me
Dealer: Ma'am, you have twenty. Nearly every card in the deck busts your hand.
Canadian stunned whore: You can't make generalizations. I might get an ace, I might not, how can you say? And don't call me ma'am, that's sexist.
Guy at first base counting cards: It's a 92.6% chance you'll bust, I've been counting and it's a true count of plus 2.
Canadian stunned whore: I know a black guy? Who plays blackjack? Ya, and he got 21 once, so you can't make generalizations. Hit me.
Dealer: 27.

I've always used blackjack as an analogy to explain the basis behind discriminating. Sure, not every so and so will do such and such, but enough of them do that it's dumb not to play the percentages. Banning discrimination is like banning thinking, banning math.

How do these people pick a stock, a college, a place to eat lunch? They judge, pre-judge. And if we don't judge, how can we use good judgment?

Juan:

What (the hell) do you mean by 'collectivise' ?

Lumping individuals in with a group.

Juan:

White racists, by definition believe that the white race is superior to other races. Same thing for Japanese racists who believe that they belong to the master race. Or nazis who believe that actually the 'aryans' are the master race. Or zionists who believe that jews are choosen by god. Or...you get the picture I hope ?

Again, you are not addressing what I said. Believing that a group is superior to another group does not imply that all members of said group are superior to all members of another, nor does it say that all members of a race are equal to one another. Saying black people are better than white people at basketball doesn't mean that Walter (black guy) is better than Jerry (white guy) at basketball. I.E. the group overall is superior, its a generalisation. Understand?

Juan:

Again, are you confused, or pretending to be ?

Racism entails treating humans (who are all EQUALLY human) as if they were different in some fundamental way because of wholly accidental differences (skin color for instance)

Racism doesn't entail treatment at all, its the belief that the primary determinant of human traits and capacities is race. You throwing in the term "fundamental" just shows that you've spotted your mistake, again, by definition, a racist must believe that there are differences between people, otherwise they couldn't believe in "race" in the first place. And what constitutes "fundamental" isn't relevant to the discussion.

Juan:

What definition ? (you see, I can also make confusing remarks).

I apologize for confusing you. Your definition:

Juan:

Racism by definition entails putting unequal people in some arbitrary group defined by arbitrary characteristics such as skin color.

Do you see where you said unequal people. Not "fundamentally equal," unequal.

Juan:

I absolutely did what ?

You said that racists are trying to rationalize coercion, but, as I've already said, you may have misspoken and didn't mean to though.

Angurse:

Dondoolee:

Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no?  Looking through the way oppression could be used, I suppose it could.   If one uses the term "playing chess" in a more facetious or light weight matter, no it can't be oppressive just by the nature of the word.  I think all definations of oppression means there is some great weight involved.  There would have to be very high value to the chess game to use the word "oppression".

If its to be taken loosely then the term oppression simply becomes empty, void of any serious meaning and implication, but then there really isn't any "nature of the word."

Dondoolee:

And to repeat Brainpolice: "distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue".  I think that is very key to any point he is trying to make.

The term "unvirtuous" comes to mind. Not helping a starving man is unvirtuous, not oppressive.

 

 

My main point was to make sure people were understanding the context of the word "oppression" being used.  Otherwise it would most likley lead to people talking over eachother's heads and a rather unproductive discussion.  And I would disagree with saying the word "opression" would become void of any serious meaning or implications.  On the contrary, the definition of the word itself implies serious meaning and implications.

I still stand by the thought that from an individualist /egoist level one could very well be oppressed by an embargo.  On a libertarian level, maybe not.

And to paraphrase and invert a Max Stirner quote: "You would call the violence of an individual law, but that of the state a crime"

Dondoolee:

My main point was to make sure people were understanding the context of the word "oppression" being used.  Otherwise it would most likley lead to people talking over eachother's heads and a rather unproductive discussion.

Understood, with the counter points being, a) the context is simply improper, b) substituting it for a more fitting word still doesn't justify the "you're exacerbating his condition" claim.

Dondoolee:

And I would disagree with saying the word "opression" would become void of any serious meaning or implications.  On the contrary, the definition of the word itself implies serious meaning and implications.

The definition of the word itself implies rights.

Dondoolee:

I still stand by the thought that from an individualist /egoist level one could very well be oppressed by an embargo.  On a libertarian level, maybe not.

Brainpolice is a libertarian though.

Dondoolee:

And to paraphrase and invert a Max Stirner quote: "You would call the violence of an individual law, but that of the state a crime"

I'm actually somewhat of a fan of Stirner, I still don't see any justification in blurring language for any contructive purpose.

JackCuyler:

Dondoolee:

I think it would be silly to think many people would put up with that, and I also think it would be silly to think most peoples' moral compasses would find that kind of embargo action tolerable (assuming the embargo was very obviously deliberate and malicious).  I would also think any "objective" jury with half their wits and the tool of jury nullification would have a decent chance to rule in favor of the person inflicted with a malicious trade embargo.

Please differentiate a "malicious" embargo with a non-malicious embargo.  Please also show how the effect on the victim of the former will be different from the other.  If such an embargo is 100% voluntary, which law will the jury nullify?

 

Off the top of my head,I suppose a non-malicious embargo would be trade I would stop in order to protect myself from violence.  A malicous one would be used to cause intentional damage to someone.  In the case of racism, just due to skin color and nothing more.  As far as showing differing effects, at the moment I can think of none.

As far as jury nullification, impossible to say, it is a jury after all.  But don't underestimate emotions, empathy, and people putting people ahead of property rights in some individual cases.  More importantly,  I wouldn't expect a very peacful place if one race has much more capital than another race and then deliberatly puts an embargo to starve out and keep poor the less prosperous race.

Laughing Man:

He is arguing that there are non-state forms of oppression that are not necessarily rights violations yet are evil and should be combated with rational arguments. Tu Ne Cede Malis.

What oppression isn't a rights-violation?

 

Dondoolee:

Off the top of my head,I suppose a non-malicious embargo would be trade I would stop in order to protect myself from violence.  A malicous one would be used to cause intentional damage to someone.

Inaction can never cause anything, much less damage to someone.

Dondoolee:

As far as showing differing effects, at the moment I can think of none.

So why is one bad and the other not?  As i asked earlier, if you are staving, and I don't give you food, why does my reason for not giving you food make you worse off?

Dondoolee:

As far as jury nullification, impossible to say, it is a jury after all.  But don't underestimate emotions, empathy, and people putting people ahead of property rights in some individual cases.

I think you are misusing the term.  Jury nullification is when a jury nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant even though the defendant has obviously broken said law.  I don't see how it would apply in the case of an embargo.

Angurse:

Saying black people are better than white people at basketball doesn't mean that Walter (black guy) is better than Jerry (white guy) at basketball. I.E. the group overall is superior, its a generalisation. Understand ?

Fine. So, let's imagine I say that racists are idiots who draw idiotic conclusions from irrelevant facts such as skin color. Is my calling them idiots a generalization or 'collectivizing' - or something else ?

Whether black people are better at basketball or not is just statistics, and is, at any rate, IRRELEVANT as far as politics and moral philosophy are concerned.

Racism doesn't entail treatment at all, its the belief that the primary determinant of human traits and capacities is race.

Which is a false belief - and the concept of race is mostly a political and collectivistic concept. The biological fact that some people share some common traits, say, skin color, is irrelevant as far as politics is concerned.

You throwing in the term "fundamental" just shows that you've spotted your mistake, again, by definition, a racist must believe that there are differences between people, otherwise they couldn't believe in "race" in the first place.

I already explained that.

Do you see where you said unequal people. Not "fundamentally equal," unequal.

Again, I already explained what equal and unequal traits I was referring to.

You said that racists are trying to rationalize coercion, but, as I've already said, you may have misspoken and didn't mean to though.

I already explained I was addressing this

Nitroadict:

I don't think it's far off to see this as eventually rationalizing coercion, & eventually contradicting libertarianism itself.

I'm sorry if you don't get it. Maybe there's some honest misunderstanding though I feel there's something else as well.

Inaction can never cause anything, much less damage to someone.

I just don't think that idea will apply if you are in a significant enough situation where Race A is deliberatly not trading valuable goods to Race B.  The inaction will  most likley cause violence and the two sides will be drawn down racial lines.

So why is one bad and the other not? 

One is a provocative action, even if it may be a somewhat passive form of it.  Why did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor?

As i asked earlier, if you are staving, and I don't give you food, why does my reason for not giving you food make you worse off?

The reason on an individual level obviously applies on a case to case basis.   I think the problem is when you have have a wide spread reason with one group targeting another.  It creates divisions, tension, etc. and the probability for widespread violence and creating a war zone between two groups is high.  If I rounded up a posse in my town to lynch left-handers, it would probably unite left-handers who otherwise may have no concern of being together.  I created the divisions and two sides by targeting a group, I created the violence with a provocative action.

I think you are misusing the term.  Jury nullification is when a jury nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant even though the defendant has obviously broken said law.  I don't see how it would apply in the case of an embargo.

I don't think I was misusing the term.  Perhaps it was poorly stated, let me try again.  If you are refusing to sell me a good and I am starving so I steal a good to save my life, I very well may get more sympathy from a jury than the vendor.  I would imagine that if similar type of behavior was happening at a larger scale and going to courts, and the behavior was definatly caused by a racial embargo; the probability for jury nullification would increase .  Yes, it's a very poor and clumsy example, but hopefully that clarifies a bit better what I was trying to get at.

JackCuyler:

Juan:

The 'redneck' (hehe) is a collectivist in the sense that he sees individuals as members of an arbitrary group (or 'collective') defined by skin color or a similar nonsensical criterion.

Or he hates everyone, but only shoots the dark ones.

 

 

That made me giggle

liberty student:

Thick libertarians have ideas built on the NAP that they say provides a more sincere libertarian experience.  Favouring diversity, polycentric order, multi-culturalism etc.

I don't follow.

 

So do the thin not have appetites for diversity and multi-culturalism at all? Would they be defined as more culturally conservative? What is the difference exactly?

Dondoolee:

Inaction can never cause anything, much less damage to someone.

I just don't think that idea will apply if you are in a significant enough situation where Race A is deliberatly not trading valuable goods to Race B.  The inaction will  most likley cause violence and the two sides will be drawn down racial lines.

It will not cause violence.  Individuals will choose to initiate violence.  If those individuals use, "He won't associate with me," as an excuse, those individuals should be punished.  "Leave me alone," is not justification for violence.

Dondoolee:

So why is one bad and the other not? 

One is a provocative action, even if it may be a somewhat passive form of it.  Why did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor?

Again, "Leave me alone," is not justification for violence.  Japan did not bomb Pearl Harbor.  Some individuals in the Japanese government ordered some fighter pilots to bomb Pearl Harbor and the fighter pilots complied.  Groups don't act; individuals do.

Dondoolee:

As i asked earlier, if you are staving, and I don't give you food, why does my reason for not giving you food make you worse off?

The reason on an individual level obviously applies on a case to case basis.   I think the problem is when you have have a wide spread reason with one group targeting another.

Groups do not act.  Individuals act.

Dondoolee:

If I rounded up a posse in my town to lynch left-handers, it would probably unite left-handers who otherwise may have no concern of being together.  I created the divisions and two sides by targeting a group, I created the violence with a provocative action.

This is an entirely different situation.  You are the members of your posse are either threatening violence, or actually doing violence.  There's a world of difference between that and you and the members of your posse walking away from a left-hander every time you meet one.

Dondoolee:

I think you are misusing the term.  Jury nullification is when a jury nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant even though the defendant has obviously broken said law.  I don't see how it would apply in the case of an embargo.

I don't think I was misusing the term.  Perhaps it was poorly stated, let me try again.  If you are refusing to sell me a good and I am starving so I steal a good to save my life, I very well may get more sympathy from a jury than the vendor.

Ahhh, ok.  I misunderstood you the first time around.  I thought you meant the starving guy(s) were going to take the vendors to court.  You can see how jury nullification doesn't apply there.  Getting to your actual point, though, it's possible, but I think unlikely.  If a small group of people are so hated that they literally cannot purchase food from any local vendor, I doubt the local juries would be very nice to them either.  It's possible, of course...