|
|
#11
07-01-2007, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nomads and Darwino-capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is Darwino-capitalism? [/ QUOTE ] The philosophy that one must never initiate a force transaction, even to survive, IE "anarcho-capitalism" cum social Darwinism. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think anyone here holds that position. [/ QUOTE ] Please describe the position the "anarcho-capitalists" here hold with respect to initiating force transactions. [/ QUOTE ] No, the problem has to do with the 'even' to survive' part. When you have no choice BUT to steal, then it's not a matter of morality because you have no alternatives. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, I wasn't trying to be tricky. As I've said before, assuming people do not become extinct, "anarcho-capitalism" will lead to a time when all land is owned, and thus people will be born into a kind of "new-serfdom", such that if they wish to eat they must either obey the rules of other people or fight. That isn't really relevant to the question in the OP though. What I'd like to how is how "anarcho-capitalist" morality indicates both nomadic American Indians (EG plains tribes like the Sioux) and European Settlers should interact with respect to homesteading. I'm not asking what *did* happen between settlers and Indians; that would be rhetorical. I'm asking what "should" have happened, had the settlers followed the philosophy espoused by "anarcho-capitalists". Do the Settlers have an obligation to respect the "property rights" of the Sioux, who rove over a large geographical area, using its resources rather inefficiently and making no effort to improve the land, but clearly "got there first"? Or do the Sioux have an obligation to give ground, either geographically (which eventually leads to them being "pushed into the sea", presumably) or by giving up their prefered lifestyle? Or should neither of the above happen, and the two groups just fight to the death and the winner gets to keep the land and use it as they wish? 
|
|
#12
07-01-2007, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nomads and Darwino-capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
Does it ever bother you to spend so much time railing against theories you don't even understand? Why don't you head over to SMP and bitch about quantum mechanics, evolution, and plate tectonics? Get a life. [/ QUOTE ] I'd just as soon you not troll in my thread, borodog. Anyway, oughtn't you be preparing a lesson for your state-funded students or something?
|
|
#13
07-01-2007, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nomads and Darwino-capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is Darwino-capitalism? [/ QUOTE ] The philosophy that one must never initiate a force transaction, even to survive, IE "anarcho-capitalism" cum social Darwinism. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think anyone here holds that position. [/ QUOTE ] Please describe the position the "anarcho-capitalists" here hold with respect to initiating force transactions. [/ QUOTE ] No, the problem has to do with the 'even' to survive' part. When you have no choice BUT to steal, then it's not a matter of morality because you have no alternatives. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, I wasn't trying to be tricky. As I've said before, assuming people do not become extinct, "anarcho-capitalism" will lead to a time when all land is owned, and thus people will be born into a kind of "new-serfdom", such that if they wish to eat they must either obey the rules of other people or fight. That isn't really relevant to the question in the OP though. What I'd like to how is how "anarcho-capitalist" morality indicates both nomadic American Indians (EG plains tribes like the Sioux) and European Settlers should interact with respect to homesteading. I'm not asking what *did* happen between settlers and Indians; that would be rhetorical. I'm asking what "should" have happened, had the settlers followed the philosophy espoused by "anarcho-capitalists". Do the Settlers have an obligation to respect the "property rights" of the Sioux, who rove over a large geographical area, using its resources rather inefficiently and making no effort to improve the land, but clearly "got there first"? Or do the Sioux have an obligation to give ground, either geographically (which eventually leads to them being "pushed into the sea", presumably) or by giving up their prefered lifestyle? Or should neither of the above happen, and the two groups just fight to the death and the winner gets to keep the land and use it as they wish? [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't matter. If you send me the money now I'll lay you 100-1 that this "problem" will never need solving in either of our lifetimes.
|
|
#15
07-01-2007, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nomads and Darwino-capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Does it ever bother you to spend so much time railing against theories you don't even understand? Why don't you head over to SMP and bitch about quantum mechanics, evolution, and plate tectonics? Get a life. [/ QUOTE ] I'd just as soon you not troll in my thread, borodog. Anyway, oughtn't you be preparing a lesson for your state-funded students or something? [/ QUOTE ] Lol. Trolling your thread titled "darwino-capitalism"? There goes another Ironometer (TM). And regarding my state-funded teaching, at least I understand that I am a hypocrite. Your last post demonstrates that you are blissfully unaware that you are.
|
|
#16
07-01-2007, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nomads and Darwino-capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Does it ever bother you to spend so much time railing against theories you don't even understand? Why don't you head over to SMP and bitch about quantum mechanics, evolution, and plate tectonics? Get a life. [/ QUOTE ] I'd just as soon you not troll in my thread, borodog. Anyway, oughtn't you be preparing a lesson for your state-funded students or something? [/ QUOTE ] Lol. Trolling your thread titled "darwino-capitalism"? There goes another Ironometer (TM). And regarding my state-funded teaching, at least I understand that I am a hypocrite. Your last post demonstrates that you are blissfully unaware that you are. [/ QUOTE ] No borodog, you are wrong; there is no equivalency between our remarks. I prefer the nomenclature "Darwino-capitalism" to "anarcho-capitalism" because it is a more accurate description of the philosophy espoused by self-described "ACists" on this forum. Not so long ago I asked something like, "How ought society deal with the issue of educating abandoned (but not orphaned) children, IE, the kids of an unmarried crack-addict." The response I got (from those ACists who offered a response at all) was essentially, "Charity. Failing that, [censored]'em." At least one AC-supporter did not even recognize the issue as a problem. Perhaps you prefer to color this as something other than social darwinism, but nevertheless, that is what it is. I'm not calling ACism DCism simply to derrogate it. In truth, I'm not being derogatory at all: calling a murderer a murderer is not an insult. Your remark to me, "get a life", is in no way equivalent to my calling ACism "darwinian". Nor is it equivalent to my telling you that you are a hypocrite, which, although admittedly written in anger, is merely the reporting of a fact that you rightly do not dispute. The fact that something about your philosophy is unflattering and I point it out, does not make my post a troll. But your response, that I should "get a life", clearly is one.
|
|
#17
07-01-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nomads and Darwino-capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Does it ever bother you to spend so much time railing against theories you don't even understand? Why don't you head over to SMP and bitch about quantum mechanics, evolution, and plate tectonics? Get a life. [/ QUOTE ] I'd just as soon you not troll in my thread, borodog. Anyway, oughtn't you be preparing a lesson for your state-funded students or something? [/ QUOTE ] Lol. Trolling your thread titled "darwino-capitalism"? There goes another Ironometer (TM). And regarding my state-funded teaching, at least I understand that I am a hypocrite. Your last post demonstrates that you are blissfully unaware that you are. [/ QUOTE ] No borodog, you are wrong; there is no equivalency between our remarks. I prefer the nomenclature "Darwino-capitalism" to "anarcho-capitalism" because it is a more accurate description of the philosophy espoused by self-described "ACists" on this forum. Not so long ago I asked something like, "How ought society deal with the issue of educating abandoned (but not orphaned) children, IE, the kids of an unmarried crack-addict." The response I got (from those ACists who offered a response at all) was essentially, "Charity. Failing that, [censored]'em." At least one AC-supporter did not even recognize the issue as a problem. Perhaps you prefer to color this as something other than social darwinism, but nevertheless, that is what it is. I'm not calling ACism DCism simply to derrogate it. In truth, I'm not being derogatory at all: calling a murderer a murderer is not an insult. Your remark to me, "get a life", is in no way equivalent to my calling ACism "darwinian". Nor is it equivalent to my telling you that you are a hypocrite, which, although admittedly written in anger, is merely the reporting of a fact that you rightly do not dispute. The fact that something about your philosophy is unflattering and I point it out, does not make me a troll. [/ QUOTE ] Beautiful. So in your case it would be: "Nielsio, you cannot be free and must be enslaved, because of the children."
|
|
#18
07-01-2007, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nomads and Darwino-capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is Darwino-capitalism? [/ QUOTE ] The philosophy that one must never initiate a force transaction, even to survive, IE "anarcho-capitalism" cum social Darwinism. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think anyone here holds that position. [/ QUOTE ] Please describe the position the "anarcho-capitalists" here hold with respect to initiating force transactions. [/ QUOTE ] No, the problem has to do with the 'even' to survive' part. When you have no choice BUT to steal, then it's not a matter of morality because you have no alternatives. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, I wasn't trying to be tricky. As I've said before, assuming people do not become extinct, "anarcho-capitalism" will lead to a time when all land is owned, and thus people will be born into a kind of "new-serfdom", such that if they wish to eat they must either obey the rules of other people or fight. That isn't really relevant to the question in the OP though. What I'd like to how is how "anarcho-capitalist" morality indicates both nomadic American Indians (EG plains tribes like the Sioux) and European Settlers should interact with respect to homesteading. I'm not asking what *did* happen between settlers and Indians; that would be rhetorical. I'm asking what "should" have happened, had the settlers followed the philosophy espoused by "anarcho-capitalists". Do the Settlers have an obligation to respect the "property rights" of the Sioux, who rove over a large geographical area, using its resources rather inefficiently and making no effort to improve the land, but clearly "got there first"? Or do the Sioux have an obligation to give ground, either geographically (which eventually leads to them being "pushed into the sea", presumably) or by giving up their prefered lifestyle? Or should neither of the above happen, and the two groups just fight to the death and the winner gets to keep the land and use it as they wish? [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't matter. If you send me the money now I'll lay you 100-1 that this "problem" will never need solving in either of our lifetimes. [/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't take 10,000-1 that DCism will come to pass in the first place, let alone that it would survive long enough for any of its long-term problems would be revealed if it somehow did. Thanks anyway though.
|
|
#19
07-01-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nomads and Darwino-capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Does it ever bother you to spend so much time railing against theories you don't even understand? Why don't you head over to SMP and bitch about quantum mechanics, evolution, and plate tectonics? Get a life. [/ QUOTE ] I'd just as soon you not troll in my thread, borodog. Anyway, oughtn't you be preparing a lesson for your state-funded students or something? [/ QUOTE ] Lol. Trolling your thread titled "darwino-capitalism"? There goes another Ironometer (TM). And regarding my state-funded teaching, at least I understand that I am a hypocrite. Your last post demonstrates that you are blissfully unaware that you are. [/ QUOTE ] No borodog, you are wrong; there is no equivalency between our remarks. I prefer the nomenclature "Darwino-capitalism" to "anarcho-capitalism" because it is a more accurate description of the philosophy espoused by self-described "ACists" on this forum. Not so long ago I asked something like, "How ought society deal with the issue of educating abandoned (but not orphaned) children, IE, the kids of an unmarried crack-addict." The response I got (from those ACists who offered a response at all) was essentially, "Charity. Failing that, [censored]'em." At least one AC-supporter did not even recognize the issue as a problem. Perhaps you prefer to color this as something other than social darwinism, but nevertheless, that is what it is. I'm not calling ACism DCism simply to derrogate it. In truth, I'm not being derogatory at all: calling a murderer a murderer is not an insult. Your remark to me, "get a life", is in no way equivalent to my calling ACism "darwinian". Nor is it equivalent to my telling you that you are a hypocrite, which, although admittedly written in anger, is merely the reporting of a fact that you rightly do not dispute. The fact that something about your philosophy is unflattering and I point it out, does not make me a troll. [/ QUOTE ] Beautiful. So in your case it would be: "Nielsio, you cannot be free and must be enslaved, because of the children." [/ QUOTE ] Any chance I could get you to answer the question in the OP? Edit: My apologies, you did so already, thank you.
|
|
#20
07-01-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nomads and Darwino-capitalism
[ QUOTE ]
They could start by not treating them as animals. Clearly coming to voluntary terms and agreements among each other is preferred. [/ QUOTE ] Just to clarify, are you saying the europeans would be entitled to some sort of compromise? In other words, do you believe or not believe that the OP Indians have a right to the land they're inhabiting?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
