I’m not an anarcho-communist, or a communist of any sort. My definition of “oppression” as fairly casual and intuitive to most people.
I never said anything about formal obligations.
There’s nothing about what I’m saying that contradicts individualism or has anything to do with communism - it’s simply the idea that people can be mistreated in ways other than physical aggression, that there are ways to deliberate exaserbate another’s suffering in irrational ways based on stupid social arrangements (such as racial separatism).
I never argued that. For god’s sakes, is anyone able to distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue?
Utterly, unequivocally, and completely false. They aren’t contributing one bit to any oppression.
Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no? You’re “contributing” to making them worse-off (in their estimation) by not playing. So, you must say yes or else you’re a hypocrite.
Yeah–it’s time for you to re-think your position.
Bullshit, I’ve seen Karl Marx tattoo you have on your back in one of your videos. Come on now, do you really think you can convince us that you care for the poor and liberty?
Oppression is about RIGHTS, dimwit, not virtue.
He is arguing that there are non-state forms of oppression that are not necessarily rights violations yet are evil and should be combated with rational arguments. Tu Ne Cede Malis.
Except that oppression entails a rights violation, its just an improper (and disgusting in my opinion) use of the term. And yes, there are non-state forms of social woes, none given constitute oppression though.
I agree that nothing you’ve said contradicts individualism, and certainly has nothing to do with communism. I disagree with the premise that I can somhow mistreat someone by refusing to deal with him. I disagree that I can exacerbate someone else’s suffering by refusing to deal with him. I don’t see how my motive comes into play. Why is it oppession if I don’t give the starving man food because he’s of a certain race, but not oppression when I don’t give the starving man food because I have none to give? In either case, I have given him no food. What about my motive makes one oppression and one not? What about my motive makes his situation worse?
I agree that it’s a virtue to feed the starving. i agree that it’s mistreatment to take food away from a almost-starving person. Not giving him my food, however, is neither.
The Rabbi Lapin speech I have referenced many times, makes the point that we have no way of proving intent or motive, only action. It’s back to the classic, “how do I prove I am not a racist”? This is a typical progressive tactic, and that is to attribute motives to actions, to frame certain actions in a context that may or may not be correct.
Libertarianism is not about crimes of the heart.
Then why bring ‘oppression’ into it?
I’m having trouble coming to terms with this. I agree that oppression is causal. You have not given a single instance of a causal act when attempting to demonstrate oppression without aggression. Inaction is not causal. It does not matter if one persondoes not act, or a million. Inaction is never, under any circumstances, causal.
Not only is this not right, it’s not even wrong (i.e. it can’t really be disproved or proven). Imo, you can’t really prove this beyond anecdotal evidence & nebulous examples of others possibly agreeing with you.
The reason I say this is not right is that I’ve encountered many people who do not agree that remaining indifferent or neutral somehow constitutes oppression.
However, just as you could only offer anecdotal evidence to prove that your definition of oppression is casual & intuitive to most people, the same goes for me, so I digress on that bit.
Your assertion that your definition of oppression is commonplace (and therefore, somehow rationalized as more correct, due to some nebulous majority consent) amid “most people”, is a generalization at best.
How does you definition of oppression not translate into force? An individual must be forced to share in order to be a true individual? To be a true libertarian?
I don’t think I’m the only one who sees this definition of oppression as a rationalization for coercion against individuals not being moral do-gooders and/or left-libertarian saints, & automatically feeling obligated to help out any & everyone they encounter that they think requires help.
In other words, your definition of oppression is merely a preference that you somehow feel obligated to force unto others. This is fine by moral persuasion, marketing etc., but it’s dishonest to argue that you are only a ‘true’ libertarian by doing this, or that all libertarians who do not do this are not really libertarian.
I don’t think it’s far off to see this as eventually rationalizing coercion, & eventually contradicting libertarianism itself.
Admittedly, It would so much simpler if only one definition of “oppression”, “coercion”, etc. were commonplace, but this is a complete fantasy, especially in an increasingly information based society.
Per your definition, everyone on the face of this earth is guilty as sin of oppression, merely for being neutral, indifferent, or choosing not to help every single individual that came their way for a hand-out and/or some earnest help.
Imo, this is the same insanity that leads to nonsensical conclusions that we’re all war criminals now simply because we are coerced into giving up our profits & are born into the society under the state (involuntarily, I might add; we do not choose whether or not to be born).
The definition seems to set perfectionist standards of a new moral “New Libertarian Man” with tacked on requirements of altruism where none is required of the individual.
I am not required to help the homeless if I do not wish to, whether it be for reasons of superficiality or practical reasons. Sure, being superficial doesn’t make me an entirely generous person, but it doesn’t make me any less of an individual.
Just as not all of the homeless are helpless, not all of them are worth helping, which goes for any individual, whether they be homeless, white, black, polka dotted, rich, immigrant, etc.
You, or anyone else, have no moral high horse, when it comes to me making a few second determination on the streets on whether or not I should help another individual, to force in anyway doing something I as an individual do not wish to do.
Each individual is different, & despite fantastical literature praising the equality of all mankind, & how we’re all equal, the reality isn’t so clear on that.
At some point, preferences need to remain preferences, otherwise, everyone will be on a moral crusade & constantly fighting one another. I find this ironic, actually, because I remember at some point you dreaded libertarian / anarchist in-fighting, yet you seem to be doing everything you can to keep the in-fighting going.
Anyways, I apologize for rambling the past few paragraphs. Just had to put in my 2 cents, I guess :\
You sounds as if saying that racists are not trying to rationalize coercion, and people who criticize racism are ‘libruls’ willing to use coercion to stop the racists (despite that the people who oppose racism are actually libertarian anarchists)
You have a pretty good double standard eh ?
Why don’t you tell that to the racists ?
Not all racists are trying to rationalize coercion, please stop collectivizing, they are, after all, nothing more than individuals. And not all people who oppose or criticize racism are libertarian anarchists. So its hardly a double standard.
I’d think the racists are quite aware that people aren’t equal.
Bingo. Altruism comes immediately to mind. The “we’re all our brothers’ keeper” mentality. Just collectivism, dressed up as progressive liberalism. This sort of rhetoric would have been common place during the Wilson era.
And to whoever brought up Communism, technically it is not, but your sense of smell is keen, because it does have the stench of collectivist socialism about it.
I wonder if you really don’t understand what I’m saying or are playing dumb ?
Again, are you playing dumb ? As a matter of fact, and by definition, racists believe that SOME people are ALL equal in some ways - for instance, a white racist believes that ALL WHITES are superior in some way to ALL BLACKS, or maybe to ALL THE REST of humanity.
In other words, your assertion “racists are quite aware that people aren’t equal” is false. Racism by definition entails putting unequal people in some arbitrary group defined by arbitrary characteristics such as skin color.
By the way you said
and
Are you collectivizing and making a general comment on what racists are aware of ?
And finally, I didn’t say all racists try to rationalize coercion so don’t put words in my mouth. I said that if Nitroadict can suggest that anarchist libertarians want to rationalize violence against racists, then it is fair to claim that non-anarchist racists are even more likely to use violence.
You seem to be making an unfounded (and of course wrong) generalization about anti-racists.
Haha. All you have is some sort of vague red-baiting - and pretty orwellian too. Anyone who objects to racism in the name of individualism is a collectivist nonetheless.
No, I am speaking about a certain group of people, who claim to be anti-racists. And I am pointing out that their POV is in fact reverse racism. I am not using the term “anti-racist” literally, in case that is what you were lead to believe.
It’s a risk you run, when you decide to interject in an ongoing discussion between parties who have a better understanding of the context and terms (as used) than you do. Since you are always 3rd party interjecting, confusion is a common occurrence.
Haha.
What people claim to be doing (motives) and what they are actually doing (action/consequences) are not always aligned. I prefer to judge people by their actions, not by their claims.