That’s not necessarily true. The belief that one group is superior to another group in no way implies the belief that all members of a given group are equal. It’s quite possible to make a generalization, even an accurate one, about a group without claiming that all members of that group are equal. Blacks have darker skin than whites. This does not imply that all blacks have the same hue, nor does it imply that all white have the same hue.
Further, racism is not necessarily collectivist. The redneck hermit in the hut with a shotgun, ready to shoot any darkie that comes along, is certainly a racist, but certainly not a collectivist.
The ‘redneck’ (hehe) is a collectivist in the sense that he sees individuals as members of an arbitrary group (or ‘collective’) defined by skin color or a similar nonsensical criterion.
Here are the first two random definitions of oppression I found
to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon
And just glancing at the wikipedia page you can tell there is a very broad use of the term.
There is no reason to think that at least some use of the word “oppression” fits in context.
I think this comes into play when looking at this from an individualist level, rather than a more libertarian one. I would not doubt for a second if I was in some odd situation where a group of people was dileberatly starving out me and my loved ones through some type of intentional malicious economic embargo that I was somehow forced to deal with, I would have no moral problem with any form of theft or revolt.
I think it would be silly to think many people would put up with that, and I also think it would be silly to think most peoples’ moral compasses would find that kind of embargo action tolerable (assuming the embargo was very obviously deliberate and malicious). I would also think any “objective” jury with half their wits and the tool of jury nullification would have a decent chance to rule in favor of the person inflicted with a malicious trade embargo.
Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no? Looking through the way oppression could be used, I suppose it could. If one uses the term “playing chess” in a more facetious or light weight matter, no it can’t be oppressive just by the nature of the word. I think all definations of oppression means there is some great weight involved. There would have to be very high value to the chess game to use the word “oppression”.
And to repeat Brainpolice: “distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue”. I think that is very key to any point he is trying to make.
Honestly I don’t, you say libertarians must be individualists, but go on and collectivise.
That’s not true at all, and doesn’t even make sense. I’ve never read that all racists believe that all members of their race are equal, nor that all members of their race are superior in any one way to all members of another. So even if a racist white fellow did believe that all white people simply were superior than all black people at, say, ice hockey, it still doesn’t follow that he would believe that all white people are equal at hockey, or anything. I’d say they make generalizations.
That sentence actually agrees with what I said. If racism, by definition, entails putting unequal people in some arbitrary group then a racist, by definition, must believe that people are unequal.
If using the definition, even your defintion, is collectivising, then yes.
You absolutely did. Perhaps thats what you meant, but you didn’t say that, you worded it poorly.
If its to be taken loosely then the term oppression simply becomes empty, void of any serious meaning and implication, but then there really isn’t any “nature of the word.”
The term “unvirtuous” comes to mind. Not helping a starving man is unvirtuous, not oppressive.
White racists, by definition believe that the white race is superior to other races. Same thing for Japanese racists who believe that they belong to the master race. Or nazis who believe that actually the ‘aryans’ are the master race. Or zionists who believe that jews are choosen by god. Or…you get the picture I hope ?
Again, are you confused, or pretending to be ?
Racism entails treating humans (who are all EQUALLY human) as if they were different in some fundamental way because of wholly accidental differences (skin color for instance)
What definition ? (you see, I can also make confusing remarks).
Please differentiate a “malicious” embargo with a non-malicious embargo. Please also show how the effect on the victim of the former will be different from the other. If such an embargo is 100% voluntary, which law will the jury nullify?
The differences are not accidental; they are phenotypes that are present because the parents made a deliberate choice in breeding partners. Race is a criteria employed by the overwhelming majority of breeding couples worldwide. Racial outmarriage remains an outlier phenomenon.
Anyway, all the anti-racist eruptions on this thread really just boil down to the ‘stunned whore’ analysis, which was a great meme on iSteve a few months ago:
Again, you are not addressing what I said. Believing that a group is superior to another group does not imply that all members of said group are superior to all members of another, nor does it say that all members of a race are equal to one another. Saying black people are better than white people at basketball doesn’t mean that Walter (black guy) is better than Jerry (white guy) at basketball. I.E. the group overall is superior, its a generalisation. Understand?
Racism doesn’t entail treatment at all, its the belief that the primary determinant of human traits and capacities is race. You throwing in the term “fundamental” just shows that you’ve spotted your mistake, again, by definition, a racist must believe that there are differences between people, otherwise they couldn’t believe in “race” in the first place. And what constitutes “fundamental” isn’t relevant to the discussion.
I apologize for confusing you. Your definition:
Do you see where you said unequal people. Not “fundamentally equal,” unequal.
You said that racists are trying to rationalize coercion, but, as I’ve already said, you may have misspoken and didn’t mean to though.
My main point was to make sure people were understanding the context of the word “oppression” being used. Otherwise it would most likley lead to people talking over eachother’s heads and a rather unproductive discussion. And I would disagree with saying the word “opression” would become void of any serious meaning or implications. On the contrary, the definition of the word itself implies serious meaning and implications.
I still stand by the thought that from an individualist /egoist level one could very well be oppressed by an embargo. On a libertarian level, maybe not.
And to paraphrase and invert a Max Stirner quote: “You would call the violence of an individual law, but that of the state a crime”
Understood, with the counter points being, a) the context is simply improper, b) substituting it for a more fitting word still doesn’t justify the “you’re exacerbating his condition” claim.
The definition of the word itself implies rights.
Brainpolice is a libertarian though.
I’m actually somewhat of a fan of Stirner, I still don’t see any justification in blurring language for any contructive purpose.
Off the top of my head,I suppose a non-malicious embargo would be trade I would stop in order to protect myself from violence. A malicous one would be used to cause intentional damage to someone. In the case of racism, just due to skin color and nothing more. As far as showing differing effects, at the moment I can think of none.
As far as jury nullification, impossible to say, it is a jury after all. But don’t underestimate emotions, empathy, and people putting people ahead of property rights in some individual cases. More importantly, I wouldn’t expect a very peacful place if one race has much more capital than another race and then deliberatly puts an embargo to starve out and keep poor the less prosperous race.
Inaction can never cause anything, much less damage to someone.
So why is one bad and the other not? As i asked earlier, if you are staving, and I don’t give you food, why does my reason for not giving you food make you worse off?
I think you are misusing the term. Jury nullification is when a jury nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant even though the defendant has obviously broken said law. I don’t see how it would apply in the case of an embargo.
Fine. So, let’s imagine I say that racists are idiots who draw idiotic conclusions from irrelevant facts such as skin color. Is my calling them idiots a generalization or ‘collectivizing’ - or something else ?
Whether black people are better at basketball or not is just statistics, and is, at any rate, IRRELEVANT as far as politics and moral philosophy are concerned.
Which is a false belief - and the concept of race is mostly a political and collectivistic concept. The biological fact that some people share some common traits, say, skin color, is irrelevant as far as politics is concerned.
I already explained that.
Again, I already explained what equal and unequal traits I was referring to.
I already explained I was addressing this
I’m sorry if you don’t get it. Maybe there’s some honest misunderstanding though I feel there’s something else as well.
Inaction can never cause anything, much less damage to someone.
I just don’t think that idea will apply if you are in a significant enough situation where Race A is deliberatly not trading valuable goods to Race B. The inaction will most likley cause violence and the two sides will be drawn down racial lines.
So why is one bad and the other not?
One is a provocative action, even if it may be a somewhat passive form of it. Why did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor?
As i asked earlier, if you are staving, and I don’t give you food, why does my reason for not giving you food make you worse off?
The reason on an individual level obviously applies on a case to case basis. I think the problem is when you have have a wide spread reason with one group targeting another. It creates divisions, tension, etc. and the probability for widespread violence and creating a war zone between two groups is high. If I rounded up a posse in my town to lynch left-handers, it would probably unite left-handers who otherwise may have no concern of being together. I created the divisions and two sides by targeting a group, I created the violence with a provocative action.
I think you are misusing the term. Jury nullification is when a jury nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant even though the defendant has obviously broken said law. I don’t see how it would apply in the case of an embargo.
I don’t think I was misusing the term. Perhaps it was poorly stated, let me try again. If you are refusing to sell me a good and I am starving so I steal a good to save my life, I very well may get more sympathy from a jury than the vendor. I would imagine that if similar type of behavior was happening at a larger scale and going to courts, and the behavior was definatly caused by a racial embargo; the probability for jury nullification would increase . Yes, it’s a very poor and clumsy example, but hopefully that clarifies a bit better what I was trying to get at.
So do the thin not have appetites for diversity and multi-culturalism at all? Would they be defined as more culturally conservative? What is the difference exactly?
It will not cause violence. Individuals will choose to initiate violence. If those individuals use, “He won’t associate with me,” as an excuse, those individuals should be punished. “Leave me alone,” is not justification for violence.
Again, “Leave me alone,” is not justification for violence. Japan did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Some individuals in the Japanese government ordered some fighter pilots to bomb Pearl Harbor and the fighter pilots complied. Groups don’t act; individuals do.
Groups do not act. Individuals act.
This is an entirely different situation. You are the members of your posse are either threatening violence, or actually doing violence. There’s a world of difference between that and you and the members of your posse walking away from a left-hander every time you meet one.
Ahhh, ok. I misunderstood you the first time around. I thought you meant the starving guy(s) were going to take the vendors to court. You can see how jury nullification doesn’t apply there. Getting to your actual point, though, it’s possible, but I think unlikely. If a small group of people are so hated that they literally cannot purchase food from any local vendor, I doubt the local juries would be very nice to them either. It’s possible, of course…