It doesn’t look like you are even attempting to answer “the challenge.”
My answer is that your question is a red herring. You believe every individual should have equality of coercion (IOW none). Are you an egalitarian now?
Good thing I requested your definition of equality. (Your referring to you who identifies as an egalitarian).
Google has links to a plethora of definitions. They will suffice. Equal = to have the same value.
No. Do you really find that question to be relevant to egalitarianism?
If you’re asking if I find it relevant to this discussion? Yes. Relevant to egalitarianism… yes, but not as an idealist goal, but a process to be struggled for.
If you really feel this is a red herring don’t bother responding anymore, because you’ll just be wasting both of our time.
Yes, those pretty fish tend to that (waste time). That’s fine. You’ve recieved my answer. What is equality is easily explained by textbook definitions. Asking what it means to an egaliatarian easily fails the test of individuality.
Isn’t that the issue though? The left libertarians and social libertarians can’t actually define what they mean. What is wealth equality? Why would anyone want people to be equal in their production? Why would anyone want winners to subsidize losers?
Adrain your posts are very well done, and informative. At least you pretty much get what I’m saying. Thank you.
Basically, in short, my point is that you can want to coerce all you can. But unless you have some unequal material means to put this plan into action, it won’t go anywhere (it has to be unequal. if you and me are just as strong as each other, and just as smart, the fight will go on endlessly with nil coercion done. The farther we get away from equal, the more easily one side will be able to coerce the other).
LS brought up a great point (I think in refutation of me, or at least tendencies close to me) that you should pay attention to FILC. You are defining weatlh in dollars. You need to define wealth more broadly.
Why subsidize losers? What incentive do they have to earn more if they have access to welfare?
As long as you are against charity, than your position is consistent. It would be disgusting, imo, but consistent.
On another note… didn’t Ford go bankrupt like 4 or 5 times before he got the Ford Motor Company off the ground? Looks like “subsidizing the losers” worked out there
Hypothetically, an under the table worker, who rents, and grows his own food (basically saying he pays not taxes; income, sales, nor property) which drives on government roads is a loser; yes or no?
Any able bodied person can be employed and doesn’t need a handout. I’d guess upwards of 80% of people who receive welfare choose it over some other exertion, because frankly, it is easy money. The reason why the church was so effective in doling out charity, was there were ethical and social strings attached. If you wanted money from a church charity, you had to stop drinking. You had to stop carousing. You had to show up in church each week. You might have to accept a job offer from a generous parishoner. You couldn’t get a check in the mail and spend all day smoking pot and playing video games behind drawn shades.
Nothing maddens me more than my having to pay taxes, and the worst form of parasite that gets a cut, is the welfare loser who also gets to vote for more welfare. Sure politicians and corporate welfare suck, but at least they kinda work for it. The welfare loser does the absolute minimum in a system designed to make my hard work and success subsidize his laziness and failure at a the lowest possible cost, and highest possible convenience for that guy.
The actual number of disabled and completely unproductive people in society is maybe 1% at any given time. If we don’t believe that we (the other 99%) won’t care for that one percent, whether because we’re social creatures capable of compassion, or some higher enlightenment we’re capable of or whatever, then we’re totally frakking screwed. We might as well all join a death cult before society comes flying apart at the seams because we’re incapable of even the most basic kindness WHERE KINDNESS IS DUE.
Look, life is hard. It isn’t fair. We all get different lots and we all have to deal with them. Being a short man in a tall society sucks. Being fat, or too thin, sucks. Being dumb, or so smart you stand out, sucks. Smelling bad, having bad teeth, losing concentration, etc. All sucks. There are legitimate things that disadvantage people, and they are no one’s fault. Nature doesn’t create perfect replicas. That’s not in her DNA.
The obsession with women and blacks is because leftism is rooted in anachronism. It’s all about what has happened, not what is happening now. It’s so rare to find a visible minority or woman in the left-lib ranks in particular, I have theorized that nearly every self-respecting black or female libertarian has too much self-esteem to hang out with a bunch of white middle class students, professors and blogosphere philosophers who regard them as de facto disadvantaged by sex or race.
Hypothetically, a leprechuan from alpha centauri with multiple appendages, who works at an interstellar gas stop, while breathing recycled air, and playing the galactic lottery, is a loser, yes or no?
Quick notes: It is a given that man prefers civilization to barbarous living (or else there would be no/little civilization) . We are naturally co-operative beings, as this works best to our self interest. Unequality is why we have the division of labor, and hence wealth. The reason why there is no slavery, a state of continual warfare, or whatever isn’t because it isn’t immoral, it just simply lost utility within the framework of a growing cosmopolitan world.
The only reason why anyone would suggest otherwise is if they were subversive disenfranchised or subsidized intellectuals (in the Shumpeterian sense of the word) to go about whatever scheme would suit them best; be it some for of racialism, nationalism, theocracy, universalist utopia, or whatever other trendy pet project they may speak of.
Or of course if they were just super insane/antisocial. A rare quality in a human being
<= So, all people on welfare are able bodied people?
Would you call voluntary donations to people who aren’t able bodied ‘subsidizing losers’? Would you call temporarily assistance to people who have gotten themselves into a bad position - with strings attached so they have an incentive to get their lives together - ‘subsidizing losers’?
“Isn’t that the issue though? The left libertarians and social libertarians can’t actually define what they mean. What is wealth equality? Why would anyone want people to be equal in their production? Why would anyone want winners to subsidize losers?”
<= Well, you deny that people explain what they mean. If you call me a ‘social libertarian’ - a terminology I wouldn’t use for myself, but sure - than I think I’ve defined thoroughly what I mean, which is in no contrast to any libertarian theory/philosophy or contrary to insights of Austrian economics, as far as I know. Advocating to help people with your own money =/= anti-libertarianism. Calling this a ‘moral ought’ - and not a ‘legal ought’ - is the terminology used for that.
<= Well, and when I make this point, I’m a horrible libertarian, who doesn’t know anything about economics, who probably wants to subsidize losers, but when you make this point, it’s oke? Cool.
The only difference is that, in accordance to the terminology used in philosophy, I called that last part a moral ought.
"Look, life is hard. It isn’t fair. We all get different lots and we all have to deal with them. Being a short man in a tall society sucks. Being fat, or too thin, sucks. Being dumb, or so smart you stand out, sucks. Smelling bad, having bad teeth, losing concentration, etc. All sucks. There are legitimate things that disadvantage people, and they are no one’s fault. Nature doesn’t create perfect replicas. That’s not in her DNA.
The obsession with women and blacks is because leftism is rooted in anachronism. It’s all about what has happened, not what is happening now. It’s so rare to find a visible minority or woman in the left-lib ranks in particular, I have theorized that nearly every self-respecting black or female libertarian has too much self-esteem to hang out with a bunch of white middle class students, professors and blogosphere philosophers who regard them as de facto disadvantaged by sex or race."
<= Who are you accusing of having an obsession with ‘women’ and ‘blacks’? I’m not sure, but who talks about women and black being in a bad position that requires charity to solve? :?
I’m talking handicapped, relatively poor people who suddenly get like cancer, drug addicts who want to improve their lives (but need help to do so), people in dying need on the street, etc. There can be a moral ought to help these people - we can quibble on who needs what and so on. I’m not talking ‘we should help someone who is poor just because the sake that he is poor/black/women’.
That’s what is called the demands of perfect justice - which is the libertarian law code - and imperfect justice - the moral oughts people ought to do, but cannot be enforced by law. I’m not saying that all should agree on this, but that there is such a thing, is really clear. And that there can be a moral philosophy regarding that, seems clear.
My answer is that your question is a red herring. You believe every individual should have equality of coercion (IOW none). Are you an egalitarian now?
Quote me as saying such a thing.
Google has links to a plethora of definitions. They will suffice. Equal = to have the same value.
A plethora of definitions doesn’t confirm what you mean by it. The same value how, if not physically? I’ve always understood value to be subjective, making such a use of equality to be meaningless. So please explain further.
Yes, those pretty fish tend to that (waste time). That’s fine. You’ve recieved my answer. What is equality is easily explained by textbook definitions. Asking what it means to an egaliatarian easily fails the test of individuality.
Your answer was extremely vague. The textbook definitions don’t fit (at least those you provided from google). I was looking for something actually in depth. You’ve just been dodging, I encourage you to dodge replying to this as well, as it was obvious from the beginning that nothing of use was coming.
It was my assumption. If you’re not an ancap, cool. Do you consider them egalitarians? They want equality of coercion.
A plethora of definitions doesn’t confirm what you mean by it. The same value how, if not physically? I’ve always understood value to be subjective, making such a use of equality to be meaningless. So please explain further.
I’ve given you my defintion; in political economy, one should value equality as a process. It is impossible as a destination.
Your answer was extremely vague. The textbook definitions don’t fit (at least those you provided from google). I was looking for something actually in depth. You’ve just been dodging, I encourage you to dodge replying to this as well, as it was obvious from the beginning that nothing of use was coming.
An caps value equality of coercion. WHy don’t you have one of them give you a strict definition of what equality means to them?
Why must the left be the only one to define equality… because we take it to the next level and value equality of general opportunity?
Also, why should my defintion of equality have any bearing on any other leftist? That’s collective thinking there.
You just don’t get what I’m saying. THere is no substance to your question. It’s just bait with which to create a straw man… aka, it’s a red herring. Looks good, no real substance, does not address any arguments. You think I’m dodging the question, but I’m just pointing out to you that it’s a bad question.
An caps value equality of coercion. WHy don’t you have one of them give you a strict definition of what equality means to them?
They are free to, I don’t have much force over the internet.
Why must the left be the only one to define equality… because we take it to the next level and value equality of general opportunity?
See above.
Also, why should my defintion of equality have any bearing on any other leftist? That’s collective thinking there.
Never said it did. Do you plan on actually explaining said definition anytime?
You just don’t get what I’m saying. THere is no substance to your question. It’s just bait with which to create a straw man… aka, it’s a red herring. Looks good, no real substance, does not address any arguments. You think I’m dodging the question, but I’m just pointing out to you that it’s a bad question.
All you have said is “I won’t answer your question” - you could have saved time/space by just not answering instead of making yourself look bad by dragging you feet, vagueness, dodging, and clear misuse of terms. My question was never intended to address your arguments nor posited as such. Make your own thread for that. I’ve asked you kindly to stop responding repeatedly now.