US Politics: Meet the New Right, same as the Old Right

[Ramsay Gimp]

He most certainly is not an anarchist, nor a true libertarian, for this exact reason- he's a neo-liberal. Anarchists (which is synonymous with libertarianism, barring the Randians re purposing the term in the 50s) are opposed to all forms of hierarchy, and have a very strong anti-capitalist tradition. I am an anarchist and sympathetic to libertarianism in the sense of Noam Chomsky or the French Utopian Socialists, and I do not draw a distinction between the state and other forms of power- quite the opposite, I view the state as but a mere extension of the economic regime and advocate the abolition of both capitalism and the capitalist nation-state. If anything anarchism is too reductionist/determinist, almost to conspiracy-theorist levels.

"We'll abolish the state and coercion but we also won't allow you to trade on the market!"= incoherent

No, that's the way o f all property, ultimately. (the "gun" may be more or less metaphorical, but it's still a gun) the state just steps in as a guarantor: "This is yours because I have a gun." Without a state you can try to use your own gun, or you can pool your guns together with other people (essentially forming a state in the process)

As the saynig goes: "Property is theft."

You actually think property is inherently theft?

You're projecting the sins of the state onto the free market. The state is a gang of robbers writ large, not capitalists. What else are taxes, in essence, than "give me your shit because we have guns"? I'd recommend reading Murray Rothbard's "Anatomy of the State." It's a kind of fable where he describes how the state emerged from a band of raiders who lived by preying on herders/farmers (actual productive humans), but eventually realized that they would profit more by staying in one place and "taxing" one group rather than going around maurading. It's not a historical account of the emergence of the state, but it's useful for seeing it's true nature.

Thomas Paine said similar things, that if you go back far enough the first ruler was simply the most successful bandit.

[TrackerNeil]

The state is a gang of robbers writ large, not capitalists.

I'd suggest we all let this speak for itself.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I'd suggest we all let this speak for itself.

But not the guy who said that property is theft, or the several Marxists we have here?

BTW, how did this discussion even start? With Seattle's new minimum wage? :laugh:

[OnionAhaiReborn]

"We'll abolish the state and coercion but we also won't allow you to trade on the market!"= incoherent

You actually think property is inherently theft?

You're projecting the sins of the state onto the free market. The state is a gang of robbers writ large, not capitalists. What else are taxes, in essence, than "give me your shit because we have guns"? I'd recommend reading Murray Rothbard's "Anatomy of the State." It's a kind of fable where he describes how the state emerged from a band of raiders who lived by preying on herders/farmers (actual productive humans), but eventually realized that they would profit more by staying in one place and "taxing" one group rather than going around maurading. It's not a historical account of the emergence of the state, but it's useful for seeing it's true nature.

Thomas Paine said similar things, that if you go back far enough the first ruler was simply the most successful bandit.

Re: Tom Paine

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/paine4.html

Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence.

It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labor to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund; for it is no reason that, because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it.

Oh my.

[Galactus]

You actually think property is inherently theft?

Yes. (or rather, the act of first making something property, IE: Claiming it for your exclusive use, is theft)

Even assuming all property is transferred and utilized legitimately from that point onwards, the act of first taking a piece of the world and calling it yours is a theft from everyone else.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

I want your computer and your collection of histories. Next time I'm in Sweden I'll be by to collect them.

;)

[TerraPrime]

Galactus,

I want your computer and your collection of histories. Next time I'm in Sweden I'll be by to collect them.

;)

Just bring a gun or 10 and a way to evade the Swedish and EU law enforcement, and you should be good to go.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

So, is the existence of property and holding property exclusively theft or not?

[TerraPrime]

TP,

So, is the existence of property and holding property exclusively theft or not?

I think "theft" is problematic as a descriptor, but I also don't think there's anything "natural" about ownership rights. In order for an event to be "theft," I always assume that someone else has to own it first, so the concept of "theft" begs the question of ownership in the first place.

If we do a thought exercise and imagine 100 families arriving simultaneously at a large unoccupied island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how does one go about establishing ownership of the different resources on the island, such as land, water, arable land, access to the coast, etc? I'd imagine it'd have to come down to who has the bigger guns. So all property ownerships start as successfully establishing exclusivity through whatever means, usually force and violence. So property rights are not "theft," but there's nothing "natural" about them, either.

[TrackerNeil]

But not the guy who said that property is theft, or the several Marxists we have here?

Stop flirting, Ramsay.

[TerraPrime]

Several Marxists? I am guessing solo comes the closest to identifying as one. I am not aware of others. Am I missing any self-identified Marxists? Maybe Galactus?

[Galactus]

I wouldn't identify as a marxist per se. (although Datepalm probably would)

[TerraPrime]

Oh right, how did I forget her?! Mea culpa.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

I think "theft" is problematic as a descriptor, but I also don't think there's anything "natural" about ownership rights. In order for an event to be "theft," I always assume that someone else has to own it first, so the concept of "theft" begs the question of ownership in the first place.

If we do a thought exercise and imagine 100 families arriving simultaneously at a large unoccupied island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how does one go about establishing ownership of the different resources on the island, such as land, water, arable land, access to the coast, etc? I'd imagine it'd have to come down to who has the bigger guns. So all property ownerships start as successfully establishing exclusivity through whatever means, usually force and violence. So property rights are not "theft," but there's nothing "natural" about them, either.

And that is a perfectly rational position. I think a society were no one can have exclusive rights to anything seems like a recipe for chaos.

[BloodRider]

But not the guy who said that property is theft, or the several Marxists we have here?

You shouldn't attempt to justify your extremist views by pointing out others who also take it to extremes.

[Galactus]

TP,

And that is a perfectly rational position. I think a society were no one can have exclusive rights to anything seems like a recipe for chaos.

Oh, definitely. I'm not saying that theft is neccessarily *bad*, in the larger scheme of things.

[The Undead Martyr]

Several Marxists? I am guessing solo comes the closest to identifying as one. I am not aware of others. Am I missing any self-identified Marxists? Maybe Galactus?

I have read much of Marx's work and find myself in strong agreement with most his historical worldview, though I would not call myself a Marxist any more than a biologist is a Darwinist; Marx's materialist analysis is simply taken for granted as a major part of studying socio-economic relations.

None of which is relevant to Ramsay's argument- red-baiting is not a suitable rebuttal, and strikes me as intellectually immature, at best.

Oh, definitely. I'm not saying that theft is neccessarily *bad*, in the larger scheme of things.

Theft implies that "ownership" is an accepted norm, specifically that the current owners have a right to their inheritance. I, and many anarchists, communists, and anti-capitalists (as well as thinkers such as Paine) question the validity of an individual owning something as "vast" as several acres of land, factories, etc. as capital/goods of such magnitude are almost always developed collectively, and furthermore as the means of production giving control of them to any individual or group of individuals is a significantly un-democratic force that leads to a stratified and unjustifiable social hierarchy- hence the calls for public ownership of land, factories, banks, etc. as opposed to private ownership, though there is also the question of whether or not ownership is enough, but rather if this "economic democracy" must extend to "management" or decision making as well simple custodianship. Then there are the questions of precisely what "management" is, whether it counts as labor, how it differ compared to the grunt work, whether or not a market system can be democratic even if all businesses are collectivized, self-managed communes, etc. etc. In short the practical questions of alternatives that naturally follow up from the idea that the current system is inherently unequal and therefore unjust.

[The Marquis de Leech]

It really depends on what you mean by Marxist. If you think that economic structure shapes history and society (I do), then you're a Marxist in at least some sense.

[Shryke]

Obamacare news!

More than 100 protesters and clergy members were removed from the Missouri Senate galleries on Tuesday, after they burst out into chants demanding the state accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Missouri is one of 24 states that has not yet accepted the more than $2 billion in federal funds available to the Show-Me state.

The Springfield News-Leader reported that the protesters shouted, “Medicaid Expansion! Do it now!” and “Missouri Senate expand Medicaid, bring dignity, do your jobs!” Capitol police reportedly removed more than 100 people and arrested 23 clergy, delaying the Senate’s session by nearly an hour.

Gov. Jay Nixon (D) supports the expansion, which would provide insurance for tens of thousands of additional Missourians. But despite estimates that refusal to accept the funds would cost state hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars, the Republican-controlled legislature has not passed expansion legislation.

After the protest, a Republican State Senator who has backed expansion tweeted that “it appears that unruly protesters have killed our chances,” as the protests have “emboldened” opponents.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/05/06/3434953/missouri-medicaid-protest/

"OMG, you protested so now we can't make the vote we were never intendant to make anyway!". Fucking whingers.

I guess at least they aren't Mississippi bad:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/the-states-with-the-worst-performing-healthcare-systems/361514/

But then, who is?

Minnesota has the nation's best-performing healthcare system, according to a Commonwealth Fund ranking released this week, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire are tied for second. Mississippi ranks last, just as it did on the previous ranking in 2009. Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas round out the bottom of the list.

A few fun graphs in there for ya.

Demographically, Mississippi is already at a disadvantage. A black man in Mississippi has a shorter life expectancy than the average American did in 1960. The state has an obesity rate of 35 percent, one of the highest poverty rates in the country, and just one abortion clinic.

Seriously Mississippi, are you trying to make the other states feel better?

Healthcare in Mississippi and in other Southern states is unlikely to become more equitable anytime soon, however. As the study authors note, 16 of the states in the bottom half of the ranking have opted not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to adults making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

In Mississippi, for example, "Medicaid eligibility for non-disabled adults is limited to parents with incomes below 29 percent of poverty, or about $6,800 a year for a family of four, and adults without dependent children remain ineligible regardless of their income," as the Kaiser Family Foundation points out.

Jesus christ....

[Wise Fool]

Well that was depressing, Shryke. So I had to imagine that

The Springfield News-Leader reported that the protesters shouted, “Medicaid Expansion! Do it now!” and “Missouri Senate expand Medicaid, bring dignity, do your jobs!” Capitol police reportedly removed more than 100 people and arrested 23 clergy, delaying the Senate’s session by nearly an hour.

...was said with an Arnold voice.