No, these aren't a couple of idiots who haven't thought out their philosophy, they sound very reasonable to me.
That disco ball and "cocaine sauce" told me all I ever needed to know about these folks. They must approach politics like Quentin Tarantino approaches film making, six rails in.
|Sanest Man Alive |
"My neighbor's hobby is hunting and eating endangered animals." Even if he's just baiting and bullshitting, I want to believe that guy lives on Hoggish Greedly Avenue.
Also, is my understanding wrong, or isn't an endangered species list basically the government itself declaring ownership of particular animals and their habitats, hence there actually being penalties for poaching them, initiatives to repopulate/relocate species, etc? I actually know of a few hunters around here with deer farms, but who's going to breed eagles or condors? You can't turn a profit or even a steady food source in Libertopia from animals with low birth rates, exacting diets, and habitats in logging areas, which are exactly the ones the end up on these lists!
Oh wait, I said the G-word, my answer doesn't count.
Sanest Man Alive
Kleenex: I dunno how others do it, but for the guys I mentioned it's less of an actual farm or more just "I live on a few acres outside town and let them graze on the property so killing/dressing them is a little more convenient".
So I guess it's farming in a Minecraft sense, if I want to feel ashamed for making that comparison. And I did, so I do. :(
Oh, no worries. Deer and rabbits are probably among the most maintenance-free breeding animals you could hope for. Hell, I don't even think you need to fence the deer in. Just have a flowerbed or garden that someone cares about and they'll stick around and destroy the plants just to be dicks to the people in charge of them.
Also RE: deer farms: venison's a nice money meat,, the fur is nice and soft, and if you can get your own steady supply of it those to sell, you have be a nice money maker.
Yeah, this is a fairly unsatisfactory answer. While it's true that ownership rights engender responsible usage, and the best way to ensure a species thrives is to get people to farm it, most endangered species have no real market value and would be useless from an agrarian standpoint. Also, it fails to take into account the underlying distinction between what people *can* do, and what people *should* do. Saying that an individual should not face the threat of state-sanctioned violence for taking a certain course of action, is not the same as saying that an individual should take this action. Even if hunting restrictions were eliminated, I submit that it would still be our ethical duty to refrain from killing endangered species. I suppose the best compromise would be to say that endangered species hunters would be tolerated, but on the condition that they approach their quarry with an eye for sustainability - that is, if you want to kill an eagle, you have to manage your own eagle-breeding program; for every three or four eagles you breed, you are entitled to kill one. (EH note: if standing up for the King's game warden approach seems unnecessarily socialist, it should be pointed out that killing an endangered species is NOT a "victimless" crime, and as such, does fall under the category of things for which a government may ethically leverage coercive force against)
Still, I have to admit, a bengal tiger steak with absinthe sauce does sound mighty delicious! And the state has no right to forbid citizens access to cocaine sauce.
Endangered species have no market value? Allow me to introduce you to the world of Asian aphrodisiacs.
That's "market value" in the same way that homeopathic medicine has "market value," except in this case something a lot more worthwhile than the patient dies.
Ah, OK, yes, good point. In certain cases, endangered species can have market value, and I suppose in these instances opening up the species to farmers would be in everyone's best interest. Now the center of the Asian aphrodisiac market is *China*, so good luck getting them to embrace libertarian principles, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't kick off our own line of, say, black rhino ranches, to help meet Chinese demand.
But animals whose bodies can be ground up to make aphrodisiacs constitute a slim minority of endangered species. What about the Aderdare Mole Shrew? The Coffin Cave Mold Beetle? Palmer's Chipmunk, the Pomace Fly, or the Riprarian Brush Rabbit?
-edit- And yes, there are some endangered species who have market value as a tourist attraction or other symbolic commodity. Animals like the Bald Eagle, or that stick insect, forget the name of it offhand, you know the one from that funky-ass looking island off the coast of Australia? These animals might be "farmed", not for traditional agricultural purposes, but simply because lots of people would feel sentimental looking at them.
I mean, consider all the patriotic memorabilia that gets sold each year with pictures of eagles on it. Most of it is utter crap, but Americans LIKE eagles, so they'll fork over money for commemorative plates, garish t-shirts, motorcycle throwrugs and whatever. Now imagine if we could sell Middle Americans STUFFED EAGLES. Everybody could own a slice of iconic Americana, a giant stuffed eagle, wings spread as if in flight, displayed proudly on their coffeetable!
That'd work, yes. But my point is, animals like eagles and black rhinos are few and far between.
Anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism.
Libertarians traditionally recognized the "tyranny of property."
Anarcho-capitalis see individual property rights as as absolute freedom. They are wrong.
Ownership does engender responsibility, though this is usually tied to the maximum profit value that owning the thing could have, which is why the Northern White and Arkansas Yellow Pine trees that used to cover Illinois are now completely gone, and whatever animals that were there are gone as well.
And of course, a hermit with nothing who owns a shed may think that the shed is the most valuable thing in his life, the most valuable thing in the entire world even, whereas the corporate mogul who owns a million acres of land, including the land underneath the man's shed, may feel that the hermit needs to get his priorities straight. A shed owned by the mogul has little value, so it is not used as responsibly as the hermit, even though the hermit does not absolutely own it, even though the hermit may move somewhere else some day.The natural progression would be for the mogul to tear down the shed, or force the man into labor markets (that the mogul creates) and into debt to pay for the shed. In either case, the freedom is being granted by the bigger proprietor, not "natural law," whatever the fuck that is.
"ownership rights engender responsible usage"
I disagree. Look down any street in the city and you see the "responsible usage" of decaying homes owned by absent landlords.
Some owned houses are in a state of disrepair, this is true. However, you'll find that the vast majority owned houses *are not* in a state of disrepair, whereas nearly all unowned houses *are*.
Furthermore, if we're talking about real estate (a special case if ever there was one!), a distinction must be made between "occupancy" and "ownership". I submit to you that, where an occupied house is in a state of disrepair, you'll usually find that the occupants do not own their house. Where people own the houses they live in, they will typically go to great lengths to keep their homes well-maintained. It is only when occupants have no vested long-term economic interest in their homes, and absentee landlords have no immediate interest in the properties they (legally-speaking) "own" - as is the case in many state-subsidized housing developments, for example - that owned property falls into disrepair.
"Some owned houses are in a state of disrepair, this is true. However, you'll find that the vast majority owned houses *are not* in a state of disrepair, whereas nearly all unowned houses *are*."
I take your point. But I still have trouble believing the universality of ownership=responsibility. I guess I just don't have that much faith in mankind. Every day I see ownership leading to crappiness. People who own pets often don't care for them. I think too much ownership leads to "taking for granted" those things owned, and that leads to treating that stuff like junk. I guess it all kinda ties in to my exasperation with the consumerist, throw-away mentality we've fostered in this country.
It's not an absolute rule, and there are certainly exceptions! I do not want to say that ALL owners act responsibly, because they don't, and if that was the impression I gave, I apologize! But ownership does provide an impetus towards responsibility, and while it might not *ensure* responsibility in all cases, an ownership dynamic does make it far more likely that an individual will treat the object in question carefully and responsibly. Hence "engendering responsibility".
I do agree with you that some people take the things they own for granted, and that can be a pretty serious problem! But I see that more as a function of prosperity, laziness, and/or being an asshole, rather than ownership per say. And I certainly don't see how removing ownership from the equation would help solve situations like slumlording and animal abuse; if anything, it'd just make things worse.
"But I see that more as a function of prosperity, laziness, and/or being an asshole, rather than ownership per say."
Again, I take your point. Which is why I tend to think that as long as humans can be assholes, true libertarianism just isn't practical.
I raise my glass to you in the spirit of civilized debate. (I've been raising my glass to me all day.)
I disagree. Look down any street in the city and you see the "responsible usage" of decaying homes owned by absent landlords."
Playing the devil's advocate, there are people that benefit from the lower rents these establishments offer. While it's not a happy life, if people live together and participate in their communities, there's no reason why neighborhoods should look like that. If every place was kept in top shape, poor people would have nowhere to live.
The alternative is to subsidize housing, and that's a form of wealth redistribution.
"I submit to you that, where an occupied house is in a state of disrepair, you'll usually find that the occupants do not own their house. "
I wish it were that simple.
The blacks in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans had very high home ownership rates before Katrina hit. They were in disrepair then, and now they're being driven out by the city for being in disrepair. Actually, home ownership in the Lower Ninth was about 10 points higher than the national average for African Americans, though still less than the national average for whites.
Home ownership becomes more of a reality when nobody wants to live in your neighborhood, such as in Detroit or Kansas City or other struggling cities. One of the big delusions of market- oriented conservatives is that property itself is the most important form of capital. Remember that ridiculous Heritage Foundation study on poverty in America? Apparently owning a second hand video game system makes you richer.
|Oscar Wildcat |
Boy, that's all it took to crack their philosophic foundation? That's even less fun than arguing with the Evangelical Christians about Jesus. Like shooting fish in a barrel, if you will.
So EvilHomer, when are you making your youtube debut? "Ask EvilHomer" would be a good start. Looks like you're raring to go from the comment section, and we'll all shoot you some traffic to kick things off eh? You could be the next Cena_Mark of POE, or perhaps you already are?
I've been thinking about it, especially after OZ introduced me to the wonders of LindyBeige, but I've been kinda busy with DA lately. Maybe after Christmas, when I get my new computer?
Unsolicited advice: Radio Shack of all places usually has a decent deal on laptops, 0-0 for a pretty good Toshiba. I suppose it depends a lot on what your computing needs are, but if your needs aren't all that complicated, I say get a Toshiba laptop from Radio Shack. (Or ASUS maybe, but definitely not HP. I have yet to see the HP that didn't have a ton of problems.)
If you're going from Windows XP or Windows 7 to Windows 8, you'll probably hate Windows 8, and with good reason. Two things that will make almost everything much better:
1) Microsoft-D brings up your desktop. ("Microsoft" is that key on the left next to Ctrl that you don't ever use.)
2) Classic Shell (http://www.classicshell.net/) will give you a Start button again.
Actually, if you're currently using Windows 7 you might want Classic Shell anyway, because then you can get an XP-style Start menu again.
Any advice is appreciated! I haven't been in the market for a new PC in nearly five years, so I'm quite rusty.
I'm actually going for a desktop this time around; my old laptop is still working well enough to be used as a mobile backup, and I've got a 60" TV that can be used as a really sweet desktop monitor. My budget is 00-00; I usually buy second or third-tier gaming rigs, but this time around I'm thinking of "upgrading" and getting something beefy enough for both gaming and video editing. My usual haunt is Newegg, but if RadioShack has a good deal, I'm fine with that too. And I'm currently using VISTA (boo!), so anything will feel like an upgrade, although from everything I've heard, I think I'd prefer 7 to 8...
Windows 7 is very nice, but Windows 8 can be tamed into resembling Windows 7. Did it to the roommate's laptop (a Toshiba from Radio Shack, of all things) and it's decidedly not a pain in the ass any longer.
Do get Classic Shell for your Vista computer, though, and fiddle with the menu settings.
Don't get a Toshiba if you can help it. If there's a Microcenter outlet near your home, they have the best deals on laptops. Classic Shell kicks ass, and the Quick Launch bar still exists but is disabled, google it to find out where to find it.
Evilhomer, you should take it to 54evil or something where we can bullshit about this kinda stuff. One of my classes has me designing a kickass all-in-one PC, I can tell you how to build a holy-fuck good system for under a grand.
You can sometimes find good stuff in the Dell Outlet (just google it). It's where the returns/refurbs/ordered-but-not-shipped stuff goes. You might have to dig to find what you need, but my last 2 PCs have come from there for about the price of the parts separately. So you can get free assembly and a warranty.
Q. Would humanity be an endangered species in a libertarian society?
I guess it would have to be, for everyone to have no neighbors.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|