Wednesday, February 14, 2007

this is a call

Calling all religious people, moral conservatives, fiscal conservatives. Calling all Libertarians, minarchists, Rothbardians. All Bush voters, devil's advocate debaters, political agnostics. You're sure you're right and you just know that if people would listen to your reasons, or be forced to answer your tough questions they'd understand how right you are. You may have loudly complained that Lefties duck the hard questions, that there are no intelligent left-wingers who'll defend their view around you long enough to be crushed beneath the merciless heft of your airtight logic. You will find a home here in our comments section, and you will find two left-wingers who will respond to you in a manner that will (at the very least) convince you of the power and seriousness of leftist thought.

BUT- we also intend to post often about sports (often sports economics,) our general disdain for Bush as a media figure (we don't know if that's the real him or if he matters to policy) and even celebrities as we see fit.

AND- if all that stuff sounded lame to you- then we were totally joking.

SO- what is our goal? We want to make a thousand billion dollars, and we know that blogging is the best way.

Everyone stop for a second of silence in accordance with this rare and historic event: a new blog has sprung into existence.

9 comments:

Matt C said...

Who are these left-wingers you speak of? Are we talking about soccer here? If so, I am not on your side, because I am right-footed.

J said...

You may have loudly complained that Lefties duck the hard questions, that there are no intelligent left-wingers who'll defend their view around you long enough to be crushed beneath the merciless heft of your airtight logic. You will find a home here in our comments section, and you will find two left-wingers who will respond to you in a manner that will (at the very least) convince you of the power and seriousness of leftist thought.

Great ! Here are my two questions:

Why do you advocate slavery ?

What do you really, truly, ultimately want ?

Matt said...

Matt C pretty much nailed it- it's all about football.

J:
A. Why do we advocate slavery? That's a tough one- I won't duck it so much as think on it for a bit. Do me a favor and clarify by answering a question: Has your mother caught you jerking off to poorly drawn crayon pictures of Stalin yet?

B. Speaking for myself (and drastically oversimplifying), I want to maximize meaningful self-determination for people.

Micha said...

Sweet, I like the blog.

J said...

Has your mother caught you jerking off to poorly drawn crayon pictures of Stalin yet?
Mu. Now your turn to answer: why do you advocate sending armed goons to force people into helping others as you see fit ?

I want to maximize meaningful self-determination for people.
Do you realise that the first half of your sentence contradicts the second half ?

Matt said...

Mu.

That's a good response. Right back at ya.

Now your turn to answer: why do you advocate sending armed goons to force people into helping others as you see fit ?

I know where this is headed. It's worthwhile to note that "as I see fit" is simply a mischaracterization. Nevertheless, I presume that you're in favor of property rights which requires the same armed intervention but aimed instead at preserving the historical accident of distribution. So again, maybe you should answer this one.


Do you realise that the first half of your sentence contradicts the second half ?


are you counting hyphenated words as one word or two? Enlighten me.

J said...

Nevertheless, I presume that you're in favor of property rights which requires the same armed intervention

Enforcing property rights does not require armed intervention, it only requires either absence of armed intervention, or possibility of armed response to armed intervention.

Demonstration:
I have, by my own work, come into legitimate possession of an apple: it is in my hand. I do not need to use violence to keep my property right that way. You cannot violate this property right except by using violence against me. If you do, and only if you do, I will have to use violence in response to enforce this property right.

are you counting hyphenated words as one word or two? Enlighten me.

I count them as one word only.

J said...

Let me add this, on the subject of the reality and naturality of property rights:

Firstly, every tangible thing in this Universe is in one place, and only one, and there can only be one tangible thing in a given place. This stems from both the laws of conservation of mass and energy, and the exclusion principle evidenced by Pauli.

Secondly, every single human action is the result of an individual will, and is effected by a single individual. All collective actions can be broken down into concurring individual actions.

Thirdly, human action always takes effect in this world through the use of tangible things.

Therefore every single tangible thing has to be under the full control of a one, and only one, individual at one time in order to be used in effecting human action decided by this individual. This establishes a domain of tangible things for each individual, upon which the action of this individual excludes that of other individuals.

We use the term "property" to designate what one individual has in his or her domain of exclusive action. Not the other way around.

Matt said...

Lookit- J responded again.

Enforcing property rights does not require armed intervention, it only requires either absence of armed intervention, or possibility of armed response to armed intervention.

Oh come now, it shouldn't take too much thought to see that defining your terms according to what we think it justified or not does us no favors. I can simply claim that since taxes are justified, then enforcing them with violence is simply a response to force (withholding taxes.) All that does is cost us an extra step in argumentation. If someone who doesn't believe in private property won't get off your land, what do you do? You force him or her off. If someone who doesn't believe in taxes withholds their taxes what do you do? You force them to pay.

I have, by my own work, come into legitimate possession of an apple: it is in my hand. I do not need to use violence to keep my property right that way. You cannot violate this property right except by using violence against me.

I discussed this on the other blog- we're not talking about theoretical justifications we're talking about actual ones.

This establishes a domain of tangible things for each individual, upon which the action of this individual excludes that of other individuals.

This stuff just raises more questions than it solves. It would seem that you're defining ownership as use. That's actually how I'd prefer to define ownership. Regardless of the holes in the argument (and there are plenty, especially the fact that you're taking a gigantic leap from "is" to "ought" without justification) you are supporting a conclusion that I'm fond of. Land and possessions for one's immediate use are presumed to be justified absent countervailing evidence. I'd even go further and say that items for one's personal use are often justified even when one is not using them.

We use the term "property" to designate what one individual has in his or her domain of exclusive action. Not the other way around.

That's not how we use the word property. In actuality, we tend to discuss property which is unused and has come into being via theft. Take the casino that Trump owns in 29 palms- does he use it? Either rarely or never. Where does it come from? Stolen land so the title is illegitimate. The problem is mainly that if we define ownership according to present use, then we have all manner of contradictions from a theoretical perspective: if you have fallow land can I use it? The is it mine? Why or why not? What about people using one thing at the same time? Etc. If you only answer one problem though, try the is/ought problem.

Matt