Or, There Is No Such Thing As "Anarcho"-Capitalism
"Anarcho"-capitalists believe that property rights should trump human rights. They believe that human beings have no rights at all and that property, THINGS, have all the rights. They have no conception nor any desire for justice. They are also fixated on inanimate objects rather than human beings. And they fetishize the ownership relation, believing that all things should be owned / anthropomorphized. They are mentally ill and they are extremely repellent.
In "anarcho"-capitalist philosophy, a person is a thing to be owned. They will cheerfully admit this except they will give you a song and dance about how people should own themselves. The only problem is that ownership is distinguished from possession precisely in that you can sell, lease and destroy an owned thing. So a person who owns their body (as opposed to possessing it as their human right) is by definition capable of selling it. So "anarcho"-capitalists literally believe in slavery.
This should not be any kind of surprise to you since the "freedom to contract" (ie, absolute bindable contracts) is literally nothing more than the ability to enslave your future self to the word of your present self. You could contract yourself out for a billion years of labour as the scientologists do. Or you could enter into a contract you later find despicable because your values were fundamentally altered in the meantime. The propertarians care not because they have successfully enslaved you and they expect you to be obedient.
In fact, the logical extension of the freedom to contract is that you can abduct and kidnap someone, rape and torture them until they break, and then have them "freely" sign a contract which retroactively legitimizes what you did to them by declaring themselves to be your slave. After all, physics does not recognize a difference between future and past, so why should contracts? If you can enslave your future selves, then why not be allowed to enslave your past selves?
Propertarians love slavery. Their "freedom of property" is enslaving all humanity to objects, things. Their freedom of contract is nothing but outright slavery. And even their "owning yourself" is just their attempt to hide their love of slavery in plain sight.
"Anarcho"-capitalists, right-libertarians, market fundamentalists and satanists ARE SLAVERS.
And if you are not repelled by them then there is something deeply wrong with you.
Oh and I call them Satanists because the Satanic Bible was in fact inspired by Ayn Rand. And because it's really all the same thing, right-libertarianism being about the legalisms of egotistical shitbags while satanism is the rituals of egotistical shitbags.
Transit Project Openings in 2024: A Global Review
3 months ago
Posts
5 comments:
This should be interesting.
I shall now read beyond the title.
"Anarcho"-capitalists believe that property rights should trump human rights"
Incorrect. Property rights are human rights.
"They believe that human beings have no rights at all and that property, THINGS, have all the rights"
Incorrect, as above.
"They have no conception nor any desire for justice."
Incorrect. Non-buggy implementations of property rights are justice.
"They are also fixated on inanimate objects rather than human beings."
Indifference.
"In "anarcho"-capitalist philosophy, a person is a thing to be owned."
False. Even if it were true, then it would a person owning another person - no consistent ancap philosophy can but end at the person.
"So "anarcho"-capitalists literally believe in slavery."
True. Which means I support more freedoms than you do - if an individual wants to sell themselves into slavery, they can go right ahead.
"You could contract yourself out for a billion years of labour as the scientologists do."
Err, what? Don't you have to be insane to buy such a labour contract?
"Or you could enter into a contract you later find despicable because your values were fundamentally altered in the meantime."
And whose fault is that but your own? If you don't deserve the consequences of your own actions, what do you deserve?
"The propertarians care not because they have successfully enslaved you and they expect you to be obedient."
Yes. I enslaved you to your own wishes. I'm such a bastard.
Moreover, this isn't how contracts normally work. The penalties for reneging tend to be pretty reasonable - a fee is normal, not jail time or mutilation.
And if you sign a contract with unreasonable punishments, and then get punished unreasonably for reneging, whose fault is that, exactly?
"In fact, the logical extension of the freedom to contract"
What a gross perversion of logic.
No, property proves that you cannot legitimately abduct, rape, or torture a person under any circumstances. Moreover, it emphasizes the incredible importance of prior consent.
Prior consent changes what would be rape into love, what would be kidnapping into a pleasant plane trip.
I haven't seen a concrete instance of torture being anything but torture, though.
Nevermind, I thought of one - surgery before anaesthetic. Taking out someone's appendix without consent would definitely just be torture. Doing it because they don't want to die of appendicitis is entirely different.
"After all, physics does not recognize a difference between future and past"
If you're a monist, this is a perversion of physics.
Dualists need not worry either way.
""Anarcho"-capitalists, right-libertarians, market fundamentalists and satanists ARE SLAVERS."
Rant becomes tiresome.
I see you like to pretend you're educated in philosophy. And perhaps that is a problem considering the garbage taught by academic philosophers. No matter.
You proved yourself an irredeemable lying moron by trying to claim that property rights are even remotely similar to human rights when in fact they are opposite and contradictory.
I'm not bothering to read your comment having glimpsed the first and last paragraphs.
Just found this article searching through the bowels of google.
Propertarians suggest that property consists of your life, your body, your time, your attention, and that property which you have converted from nature by your actions, or which you have obtained in voluntary trade with someone else.
Propertarian ethical arguments only require that transfers of property be voluntary.
Propertarians argue that there has rarely been any circumstance where 'everything wasn't owned by someone else upon one's birth'. So that the concept of 'available' property or 'community property' is simply false.
Propertarians argue that the division of labor is the source of prosperity, and that property, money and prices are necessary for an advanced division of knowledge and labor that makes it possible to raise people out of subsistence poverty.
Until recently, there was no Propertarian solution to property that had 'shareholders'. 'Shareholders' in a village or small agrarian town are simple to understand. So also is the observation of norms (and punishment for failure to observe norms) where norms are the terms of teh shareholder agreement between members of the village.
Praxeologists like myself within the libertarian movement would argue that if you refrain from opportunities for personal gain by theft, fraud and violence against the property of others, then those are actions which cost you, and therefore are actions by which you acquire 'shares' in one or more local economies.
As a shareholder you would be due dividends in exchange for your actions on the behalf of other people in the economy.
All that is necessary for this propertarian system to work, is that there are sufficiently articulated property definitions, and sufficiently articulated dividends, such that each person's contributions and consumptions could be measured and accounted for. In other words, we can have any shareholder contact that we like as long as long as transactions are voluntary.
To argue against this simply means that one would prefer the political system be open to fraud, theft, violence, and involuntary transfer.
The problem is not property. It is poor government.
Propertarianism is the ideology of fucking Autistics. Only empirically verifiable BRAIN DAMAGE can result in belief in it.
Post a Comment