3 ms·

It’s funny how some people will arbitrarily become a right-libertarian to come to the defense of some company but wont follow that defense through to its conclu

It’s funny how some people will arbitrarily become a right-libertarian to come to the defense of some company but wont follow that defense through to its conclusion. Sure, Google is a company comprised of shareholders but it’s also a publicly traded company, which invokes numerous protections and services of the State, which no private person could ever dream of getting for themselves. Many governments have entangled themselves with google, which is one of the most compelling reasons for Alphabet’s current enormity. They do sketchy things for intelligence arms of governments, law enforcement, etc., which is taxpayer-funded. People who truly believe in the principles you’re invoking here - the idea that private property rights allow people to do “whatever” - would disagree with your fundamental premise, which tells me that you don’t apply this position in a principled way.

jolmg 7y ago
I'm not sure I understand you. What do you think I'm not following through on? What does Google being a publicly traded company or their offering services to government entities have to do with their right to decide who to give away services to? > People who truly believe in the principles you’re invoking here - the idea that private property rights allow people to do “whatever” That seems more generic than what I said. I'm also not sure I'd call it a principle. If a man is giving away sandwiches to everyone, would it be invoking principles to say that he has no obligation to give a sandwich to each and every person? I think it's just a statement of fact. > would disagree with your fundamental premise Sorry, I'm not familiar with this type of language. What is this premise that you refer to? EDIT: > people will arbitrarily become a right-libertarian to come to the defense of some company but wont follow that defense through to its conclusion. I'm not sure if the idea I expressed is right-libertarian. If it is, then ok. However, saying that I become right-libertarian seems to imply that I believe in everything that is right-libertarian, which might not be the case. Is your idea of following through to stick with one of these labels and everything they imply and the exclusion of everything implied with every other label? I'm not sure people and their ideals can be categorized so neatly like that.
- AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
  > I'm not sure people and their ideals can be categorized so neatly like that. Right-libertarians can be. Ideological consistency, which disregards one's own personal abstract preferences, is the name of the game within that political ideology. Many people take on the form of right-libertarians when its rhetoric can easily suit the practical outcomes they seek. Social media censorship, when it is in a left-leaning person's favor, is often justified by their claiming, "Twitter are a private company. They can censor whomever they want." A more controversial example is the "pro-choice" argument for abortion in the US, which commonly holds the position of self-ownership, from where the phrase "my body, my choice," derives. Many, or dare I say, most constituencies who hold these positions - positions with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way - will fail to carry them over to other issues where its application is just as logical, if not more-so. A great example is the gun control debate, where these same people will fail to recognize the property rights of law-abiding, non-violent gun owners. This is an arbitrary inconsistency, one which cannot be defended with ideas, only with emotions and fury. If you are going to take the very brave position of respecting property rights, you had better be ready to defend them consistently. Otherwise, you will encounter numerous ideological, not to mention practical, pitfalls with your argument.
  - jolmg 7y ago
    > Right-libertarians can be. Ideological consistency, which disregards one's own personal abstract preferences, is the name of the game within that political ideology. Just because a person might agree with a right-libertarian on a specific point, doesn't mean they now have to adopt everything about their ideology or apply it in everything without regard to differences in the topics at hand. > Many, or dare I say, most constituencies who hold these positions - positions with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way - will fail to carry them over to other issues where its application is just as logical, if not more-so. A great example is the gun control debate, where these same people will fail to recognize the property rights of law-abiding, non-violent gun owners. Are you sure they fail to recognize them? or perhaps they do to an extent, but they see there are other points to consider regarding guns specifically, points that perhaps they value more than the recognition of property rights on this specific subject. > This is an arbitrary inconsistency, one which cannot be defended with ideas, only with emotions and fury. It very much is arbitrary, and I think that's fine. Gun control is not exactly the same problem as the abortion controversy, though they have some similar aspects. In the case of gun control, some people will feel that unlimited recognition of property rights with regards to guns would lead to public safety issues. Different people will want to stand on different points of that scale, valuing property rights vs public safety. I think this can be defended with ideas. The emotions and fury come from people not being able to articulate their ideas, or their not understanding the ideas of others, or perhaps having mutual understanding but seeing that they're a minority in how they're affected by proposed policies that everyone else seems to agree on. It doesn't mean there's lack of ideas. Ideas and emotions/fury are 2 different things. You can't use them for the same, and are best left mostly ignored, if not taken as an indication that something is lacking in someone's communication. > If you are going to take the very brave position of respecting property rights, you had better be ready to defend them consistently. Well, I think I've stated my point, but to conclude, I don't think respecting property rights necessitates holding them above all else. That a person sees the recognition of property rights on one topic as the most important aspect doesn't mean they now have recognize it as the most important aspect in every other topic. Every topic involves different aspects whether that's public safety, the property rights of a potential mother with regards to her body, the right to life of a fetus, etc. Every person will arbitrarily value each aspect differently, see the trade-offs that the issue at hand necessitates, and choose their position accordingly.

jolmg 7y ago

I'm not sure I understand you. What do you think I'm not following through on? What does Google being a publicly traded company or their offering services to government entities have to do with their right to decide who to give away services to? > People who truly believe in the principles you’re invoking here - the idea that private property rights allow people to do “whatever” That seems more generic than what I said. I'm also not sure I'd call it a principle. If a man is giving away sandwiches to everyone, would it be invoking principles to say that he has no obligation to give a sandwich to each and every person? I think it's just a statement of fact. > would disagree with your fundamental premise Sorry, I'm not familiar with this type of language. What is this premise that you refer to? EDIT: > people will arbitrarily become a right-libertarian to come to the defense of some company but wont follow that defense through to its conclusion. I'm not sure if the idea I expressed is right-libertarian. If it is, then ok. However, saying that I become right-libertarian seems to imply that I believe in everything that is right-libertarian, which might not be the case. Is your idea of following through to stick with one of these labels and everything they imply and the exclusion of everything implied with every other label? I'm not sure people and their ideals can be categorized so neatly like that.

AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
> I'm not sure people and their ideals can be categorized so neatly like that. Right-libertarians can be. Ideological consistency, which disregards one's own personal abstract preferences, is the name of the game within that political ideology. Many people take on the form of right-libertarians when its rhetoric can easily suit the practical outcomes they seek. Social media censorship, when it is in a left-leaning person's favor, is often justified by their claiming, "Twitter are a private company. They can censor whomever they want." A more controversial example is the "pro-choice" argument for abortion in the US, which commonly holds the position of self-ownership, from where the phrase "my body, my choice," derives. Many, or dare I say, most constituencies who hold these positions - positions with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way - will fail to carry them over to other issues where its application is just as logical, if not more-so. A great example is the gun control debate, where these same people will fail to recognize the property rights of law-abiding, non-violent gun owners. This is an arbitrary inconsistency, one which cannot be defended with ideas, only with emotions and fury. If you are going to take the very brave position of respecting property rights, you had better be ready to defend them consistently. Otherwise, you will encounter numerous ideological, not to mention practical, pitfalls with your argument.
- jolmg 7y ago
  > Right-libertarians can be. Ideological consistency, which disregards one's own personal abstract preferences, is the name of the game within that political ideology. Just because a person might agree with a right-libertarian on a specific point, doesn't mean they now have to adopt everything about their ideology or apply it in everything without regard to differences in the topics at hand. > Many, or dare I say, most constituencies who hold these positions - positions with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way - will fail to carry them over to other issues where its application is just as logical, if not more-so. A great example is the gun control debate, where these same people will fail to recognize the property rights of law-abiding, non-violent gun owners. Are you sure they fail to recognize them? or perhaps they do to an extent, but they see there are other points to consider regarding guns specifically, points that perhaps they value more than the recognition of property rights on this specific subject. > This is an arbitrary inconsistency, one which cannot be defended with ideas, only with emotions and fury. It very much is arbitrary, and I think that's fine. Gun control is not exactly the same problem as the abortion controversy, though they have some similar aspects. In the case of gun control, some people will feel that unlimited recognition of property rights with regards to guns would lead to public safety issues. Different people will want to stand on different points of that scale, valuing property rights vs public safety. I think this can be defended with ideas. The emotions and fury come from people not being able to articulate their ideas, or their not understanding the ideas of others, or perhaps having mutual understanding but seeing that they're a minority in how they're affected by proposed policies that everyone else seems to agree on. It doesn't mean there's lack of ideas. Ideas and emotions/fury are 2 different things. You can't use them for the same, and are best left mostly ignored, if not taken as an indication that something is lacking in someone's communication. > If you are going to take the very brave position of respecting property rights, you had better be ready to defend them consistently. Well, I think I've stated my point, but to conclude, I don't think respecting property rights necessitates holding them above all else. That a person sees the recognition of property rights on one topic as the most important aspect doesn't mean they now have recognize it as the most important aspect in every other topic. Every topic involves different aspects whether that's public safety, the property rights of a potential mother with regards to her body, the right to life of a fetus, etc. Every person will arbitrarily value each aspect differently, see the trade-offs that the issue at hand necessitates, and choose their position accordingly.