User loginLive Discussions
Google search Most popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksA Skeptical Blog |
We readMaye is innocent Tip jarFor entertainment onlyThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 7 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
The other reason I only have a libertarian streakSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on June 17, 2006 - 10:40am.
on Culture wars | Politics | Race and Identity ...is guys like Karl Zinsmeister.
Yes, our new Presidential domestic policy advisor. I consider him an active enemy of Black interests. In this interview he uses Black folk as examples of American pathologies. Somehow though, by the end he lets you know American pathology IS Black pathology.
Is a poser. The article is full of this psychotic unease with self and ideology...and he is clearly an ideologue...but he's middle class and average and an everyman, but he studied at Yale and spent a year abroad in Ireland, but he's a self-made man with no carpentry skills (at least that's what Ben thought - I wonder how he came up with that notion) and yet, he's a part-time carpenter building spiral staircases to heaven...and he's lived poverty and he knows urban life, but he lives in Cazenovia (I've been there several times...whatever)...This guy is a buster - straight out of the Kennebunkport Carpetbagger School for Mid-American Wannabees. Next year, he'll be talking "Ohio-an." As for the linkages between pathology and being on the dole, I could have sworn he was talking about rich white folks the whole time...divorce rates, kinky sex, dysfunctional families, eroded values, etc. If he hadn't mentioned black folk explicitly, I'd never have known he "cared." Nonetheless, Wattenburg should be happy that someone's still making babies - and if Franky's monster has his polygamous way, the numbers could get even better. your intent with the original title of the article? I didn't get the interviewee as an authentic libertarian. I don't know if you are - but if so, there are more issues worthy of contemplation here. Thanks. Zinsmeister is an AEI fellow. If anyone is authentic, he is. I just have a libertarian filter I invoke in my decision process. It kicks in really late, usually late enough that it's not decisive. What more worthy issues you got? I was thinking about the notion of free markets and ill-gotten gains. Much of his discussion of pathology centered on a people who may be considered ill-gotten gains and his libertarian approach didn't seem to kick in one stitch. It seems that me that in matters of theft and force, libertarian sentiments are fairly clear. They've conjured up all manner of externalities to explain the inefficiencies of state-sanctioned force...but they don't believe these actions make corporations or Austrians (or any other non-Russian Europeans) pathological - just black folk. Seems odd. Seems inauthentic. I was thinking about the notion of free markets and ill-gotten gains. Much of his discussion of pathology centered on a people who may be considered ill-gotten gains and his libertarian approach didn't seem to kick in one stitch.Gains can only be ill-gotten in terms of a contract. You don't have a contract with property. After they weren't property anymore they were employed under market conditions...Jim Crow...and if they didn't like it they could leave. Premise 1: It's not the libertarian position that western europeans are the only humans. Premise 2:As I understand it, the authentic libertarian position would hold that any form of slavery (wage-based or otherwise) is flawed. Premise 3: Jim Crow was not a market condition...it was a state-sanctioned externality on a free market that imposed capital, labor, credit and civil rules based on non-market-based criteria. Hollah. Are the positions you've stated libertarian or are the positions that I've stated libertarian? I'm learning here so an assist is appreciated. Thanks. The libertarian position is, the only legitimate law is contract law and the only legitimate function of government is enforcement of contract law. Capital 'L' Libertarians eliminate all options that don't meet those conditions, then search for a answer in what remains. Small 'l' libertarians gather all possible solutions and pick the least emcumbered method.
this is a question of a philosophy that precedes law. in other words, the question from a libertarian perspective should not merely be one of "law" because we can't presume that africans did not have laws of their own - and trade with one group that endorsed slavery (based on deeds or birth vs. skin color, or otherwise) would not entail any "valid" right over the one being traded or bound and sold. If the libertarian position is that might does not make right, then the question of law, as it relates to africans is beside the point...moreover, the contracts should not have standing since the were not established between enslaved africans and owning europeans (broadly, though this situation did obtain in many instances). I'm hoping to pin down the libertarian position...as I understand, might does not make right, the free market should be allowed to dominate decisions and governments should have a limited role. Since the government extended the ultimate political subsidy to the South in 1789 (3/5's compromise), it created an artificial demand for slave labor and insulated the south from competition in international markets. That seems like a libertarian perspective to me. I don't understand the libertarian position to be absolutely aligned to white supremacist ideology - it's just that they're not any more objective than other folks in terms of infusing their cultural framework into their narratives. Talk to me. 1. If the Portuguese paid rent to the Akan for the privilege of building a fort and the right to trade with the Akan for enslaved Africans - and a contract is writtten to this effect, the contract only has standing between the Portuguese and the Akan. The contract does not have standing with the slave. The guns of the Portuguese and the Akan have standing. So, if the libertarian position is that might does not make right...I don't see how such a contract could have standing. 2. As I understand the philosophy, force is not a free market factor. It is a non-market force. It may require countervailing force, but when force determines an outcome, it represents a problem - regardless of who wields force. I understand the libertarians to be staunchly anti-government and by extension, anti-war. Don't take that as a defense of the philosophy - I'm just looking for some clarity...if that's all you got, it's all you got and it's all good. I'm hoping to pin down the libertarian position. I can't give you the libertarian position (though I can point to folks who say they hold it). What you can get is my understanding of the libertarian principle, how I recognize it, how I use it. Good enough?
That is not the libertarian position. You could say "the libertarian position is not 'might makes right," but that is not the positive position you're looking for.
The slave is property. It would be like entering a contract with a box of corn flakes. And understand that means the slave has no recourse against you.
Libertarianism is not anti-government at all. Libertarianism holds the proper function of government is to enforce contracts. No more, but no less either. That requires the use of force. Whether or not you call the use of force 'war' is a matter of semantics and scale. As you say, force is not a factor of production. It, too, is a product, or can be. A libertarian would be more than happy to contract to provide your military forces. A libertarian would also call on the government to compel you to provide that which you have contracted to provide. If you lined up all the libertarians in the world, ordered from Batshit Crazy Libertarian to barely noticeable tendency libertarian
That doesn't make sense to me. I hear what you're saying, but whether might does not make right or otherwise, the question of linking pathology to a "captive audience" begs the question of where libertarians stand on the question of slavery...I think you missed one of my points. I get that the person holding a contract for a slave believes the slave to be property - and that is entirely beside the point. Even an agreement sanctioned by the state and the contract holder...the issue is that the seller is trafficking in stolen property...and the libertarian philosophy (as far as I can tell) does not explicitly or implicitly suggest that Black folk are property. The only attestation to that effect would be between a slave trader, slave owner and the state...none of those parties would actually have a valid voice - and as such the terms of the contract would be immaterial with respect to the enslaved African (from a philosophical perspective). I suppose the broader question is this...in the event of a rebellion, would a libertarian argue, fundamentally, that Africans are violating contracts or seeking individual liberty? They're not violating the contract since they're not a party to the contract...so the point is moot. What, then, is the libertarian view from the perspective of an enslaved african vs. the libertarian view from the perspective of a contract holding slave owner? You're suggesting libertarians can be slaveholders and abolitionists...if so, then the philosophy must not have a view of individual liberty - which, of course, makes no snese.
They have no contract with the slave. You're suggesting libertarians can be slaveholders and abolitionists...if so, then the philosophy must not have a view of individual liberty - which, of course, makes no sense. Sure it makes sense. But the actual case is, you're assuming the personhood of Africans. A Libertarian in the 1800s probably wouldn't.
Case for Slavery http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm the crux - voluntary vs. involuntary. as i said, the contract piece is beside the point since the contract is not between the enslaved african and the slaveholder. So, back to my original point...in the case of involuntary slavery, the question of restoring the efficiency of the market by a measure of earned value to laborers remains open. Some restoration must be made - and subsequently, a conversation about the pathologies of an uncompensated collective are disingenuous at best. The AEI poser dude is, to my mind, embracing an inauthentic libertarian position because the outstanding question is one of market efficiency. Involuntary slavery creates inefficient markets because the state props up invalid appropriations of labor. The market remains inefficient as long as the balance between those two entities remains askew. So, the libertarian position should, authentically, seek to place restoration of that balance at the forefront of the conversation. since the contract is not between the enslaved african and the slaveholder. Right. Which is why the libertarian principle says nothing about it. You keep insisting on treating Africans like humans. That wasn't even the majority opinion at the time.
No, it doesn't. At all. An "efficient" market is simply one that takes all its inputs into account immediately. The market rate for labor is already discounted to take slavery into account, just as it is now with illegal immigrants. You might as well restore the value of a horse's work to him.
Financial Concepts: Efficient Market Hypothesis Under the efficient market hypothesis, any time you buy and sell securities, you're engaging in a game of chance, not skill. If markets are efficient and current, it means that prices always reflect all information, so there's no way you'll ever be able to buy a stock at a bargain price. I know I said it would be all my opinion, but I sense a dispute over the meaning of 'efficient.'
Libertarianism is a political philosophy[1] advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. - that's the wiki definition...
1) Now either the definition is false or the authentic libertarian position is opposed to involuntary servitude. The philosophy cannot hold both positions at once. The case of whether the enslaved is african or not is immaterial. Questions about the humanity of africans, for white folk, clearly precede the birth of this philosophy. So, within the logical framework of the ideology - one cannot be an authentic libertarian and a slaveholder of involuntary human capital or an advocate of such. 2) Involuntary servitude is not a free market condition for labor. As such, the EMH would hardly be applicable...hence, a second libertarian pillar of opposition to the practice. "They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle. Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom (negative liberty). Force is not opposed when used in retaliation for initiatory aggressions such as trespassing or violence." I think I have a better handle on this now. I still think that AEI dude is a straight poser, a fraud and a perpetrator. Now either the definition is false or the authentic libertarian position is opposed to involuntary servitude The wiki definition isn't so much false as it is a popularization of the idea.
Property rights only exist within a specific legal framework, so the first bit of nonsense is the idea that property is a natural right. That framework has traditionally (planetary, not just Euro tradition) included the possibility of humans as property...that's the second bit of nonsense. Libertarian principle does not compel or exclude the legitimacy of slavery. From Answers.com: "Libertarians believe that government should be limited to the defense of its citizens. Actions such as murder, rape, robbery, theft, embezzlement, fraud, arson, kidnapping, battery, trespass, and pollution violate the rights of others (my emphasis), so government control of these actions is legitimate. Libertarians acknowledge human imperfection and the resulting need for some government deterrence and punishment of violence, nuisance, and harassment. However, government control of human activity should be limited to these functions." You said: "Libertarian principle does not compel or exclude the legitimacy of slavery." I says: It most certainly must in the case of involuntary servitude (I've already sent YOU a libertarian defense of voluntary servitude)...as involuntary slaves are seized in a manner that surely violates their rights. I believe the wiki definition and accompanying documentation to be vastly superior in depth and quality to that posted on answers.com. You're right. That's because it's contingent on the priority you give to the libertarian principle. I could have copied over the part about the Anarchists as well, or worse, the bullshit about claiming Lao-Tsu as a libertarian. How useful would that be? Which interpretation is "authentic?" You can't put a finger on "Black authenticity," you think "Libertarian authenticity" is any less slippery?
The difference between the Libertarian denominations is, which other concepts are invoked and in which order. Anarchism is the pure form of adherance to the principle...everything is subordinate to the libertarian principle. Are they the authentic libertarians? To me, physical reality is the primary filter and libertarianism is an ideal that's only even conceivable once you have a stable somewhat progressive society. That pushes the concept WAY down the line for me. As you see, the way I view things it's not even possible to assign authenticity. I believe the wiki definition and accompanying documentation to be vastly superior in depth and quality to that posted on answers.com. Since I think it's silly to treat it as a primary approach, it doesn't much matter to me. In fact, I kind of consider the extra depth to be wasted time. Post new comment |
|
|
||
The author of "The Birth Dearth" is back with more. It seems he's breeding more than wittle white babies. He's turned into Dr. Frankenstein. Git ya freak on!