User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 93

Thread: Tariffs

  1. #81
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That's a nice bit of theory, and certainly a reasonable way for a society to set up its property rights, but that doesn't take away from the fact that property rights only exist because society recognizes that they do. Not only that, but it's the combined force of society, entrusted to the government through the monopoly on the use of force, that maintains the existence of property rights in the first place.
    I would disagree. Property rights exist even if the government tries to abridge them. And, again, the government does NOT equal "society."


    If a government declares, such as in a communist government, that there are no individual property rights, even if a person claims a piece of land as private property, the only way he can defend this claim is to keep others away from his property, which requires the use of force on his part. By contradicting society, he is effectively declaring sovereignty over that piece of territory, to the detraction of the state's claim of sovereignty over it. As you can see, the state is going to likely use force to protect its sovereignty claim, and the man is going to have to use force to defend his own claim.
    And the individual would be well within his rights to use force against the government to protect his property.


    Property only exists under the umbrella of the society which uses force to defend it, or the personal preclusion of others from the use of land or chattel. Needless to say, this can be very difficult.
    This is faulty. By this standard, a government can do anything to anyone at any time. This is, of course, an awful idea, one that breeds totalitarianism.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #82
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Umm, yeah. That's generally called "imperialism". If this weren't the case, countries wouldn't need armed forces. Ethics are entirely beside the point.
    If ethics are beside the point, then "might is right", in which case there is nothing wrong with imperialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    That's a nice bit of theory, and certainly a reasonable way for a society to set up its property rights, but that doesn't take away from the fact that property rights only exist because society recognizes that they do. Not only that, but it's the combined force of society, entrusted to the government through the monopoly on the use of force, that maintains the existence of property rights in the first place.

    If a government declares, such as in a communist government, that there are no individual property rights, even if a person claims a piece of land as private property, the only way he can defend this claim is to keep others away from his property, which requires the use of force on his part. By contradicting society, he is effectively declaring sovereignty over that piece of territory, to the detraction of the state's claim of sovereignty over it. As you can see, the state is going to likely use force to protect its sovereignty claim, and the man is going to have to use force to defend his own claim.

    Property only exists under the umbrella of the society which uses force to defend it, or the personal preclusion of others from the use of land or chattel. Needless to say, this can be very difficult.
    I take it you have no problem with tyranny of the majority then?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  3. #83
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    I would disagree. Property rights exist even if the government tries to abridge them. And, again, the government does NOT equal "society."
    Where do those rights come from? You might be conflating my perception of government and society - I believe government is society's collective decision-making body. It is embodied with such powers deriving from the sovereignty of the people as a whole. When it uses force, that is to protect the validity of those decisions against those who would try to compromise them and the sovereignty of society. Likewise, when it uses force outside the bounds of powers granted to it by society, the people can change it or overthrow it.

    Yes, I'm pretty much restating the Declaration of Independence.

    And the individual would be well within his rights to use force against the government to protect his property.
    This is only the case if you believe in some natural law beyond human decision-making. If that's the case, this is as useless as debating religion - I'm not going to change your mind because your position isn't based on any falsifiable claim.

    This is faulty. By this standard, a government can do anything to anyone at any time. This is, of course, an awful idea, one that breeds totalitarianism.
    A society can do whatever it wants to anyone at any time. However, there are very few means of society collectively acting. The government generally is the only means of this occurring. However, in Western cultures, societies have determined that governments need particular restrictions upon them for society's benefit. At other times, this was not the case (when people believed in the divine right of kings).

    This is not a God-given situation or inevitable given human psychology. It's specifically because of the decisions a large group of people have made, either actively (through writing a society's constitution or legislating in a non-constitutional state) or tacitly (through neither emigrating nor inciting revolt or revolution).

  4. #84
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Where do those rights come from? You might be conflating my perception of government and society - I believe government is society's collective decision-making body. It is embodied with such powers deriving from the sovereignty of the people as a whole. When it uses force, that is to protect the validity of those decisions against those who would try to compromise them and the sovereignty of society. Likewise, when it uses force outside the bounds of powers granted to it by society, the people can change it or overthrow it.

    Yes, I'm pretty much restating the Declaration of Independence.
    You have a very weird interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, if you think that. It clearly states that humans have unalienable natural rights. They are not given by government, but are inherent to man's nature.



    This is only the case if you believe in some natural law beyond human decision-making. If that's the case, this is as useless as debating religion - I'm not going to change your mind because your position isn't based on any falsifiable claim.
    I definitely believe in natural law, as did the Founding Fathers, John Locke, and many Western philosophers.


    A society can do whatever it wants to anyone at any time. However, there are very few means of society collectively acting. The government generally is the only means of this occurring. However, in Western cultures, societies have determined that governments need particular restrictions upon them for society's benefit. At other times, this was not the case (when people believed in the divine right of kings).

    This is not a God-given situation or inevitable given human psychology. It's specifically because of the decisions a large group of people have made, either actively (through writing a society's constitution or legislating in a non-constitutional state) or tacitly (through neither emigrating nor inciting revolt or revolution).
    That sounds like a rather weak Social Contract argument.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #85
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    If ethics are beside the point, then "might is right", in which case there is nothing wrong with imperialism.
    This is not a question of "right" or "wrong" - it's simply stating how things are. Just because I find actions to be unethical or immoral, that doesn't mean other people aren't going to do it.

    States as actors live in a quasi-anarchic world. In that world, might does make right. The victors write history... or you mean the United States didn't single-handedly win World War II?

    I take it you have no problem with tyranny of the majority then?
    I have a huge problem with it. Fortunately, I live in a society which decided to restrict its government in the areas involving certain things we as a society have determined to be fundamentally right for them not to interfere in. Unfortunately, I don't live in one which has expanded those certain things as much as I would like. This is still not enough to make me move, and I will be working to make sure these decisions are made.

    Doesn't mean I don't realize that can change at a given moment (see PATRIOT act).

  6. #86
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Umm, yeah. That's generally called "imperialism". If this weren't the case, countries wouldn't need armed forces. Ethics are entirely beside the point.
    And with this statement, you obliterate your previous points.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #87
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    And with this statement, you obliterate your previous points.
    With all due respect, I think you're completely missing the point. Domestic policy != foreign policy.

  8. #88
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Why shouldn't the US have an automotive industry?
    Because we can't compete globally. Our non-competitive firms need to die to allow the (domestic) entrepreneurial process to replace them.

  9. #89
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    The tariffs argument usually devolves into a dispute between two competing ideologies.

    These two being Isolationism and Globalization. The way technology is going, travel between nations is only going to get easier and cheaper. This migration (and more importantly its increase) will drive globalization across the world.

    However, as we have seen, the benefits of globalization are generally, only realized by first (and second - think China and India) world nations that have the money to be technologically relevant on the world stage.

    This leaves the third world nations with enough resources to exist, and to remain producers of cheap products which the richer more technologically advanced nations will buy and (through this) enjoy an ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED STANDARD OF LIVING (think about how much money we make, but how cheap shit is a Wal-Mart).

    This basically forces the third world nations into forcible indentured servitude.

    What the US needs to do to remain ahead of the curve economically, is promote technologies which ease energy requirements for human travel. This way, we will remain a nation that the world relies on for technology, and thereby create a co-prosperity sphere between ourselves and the rest of the world. This option however, carries a heavy price. It can only be entertained if we are willing to subjugate the rest of the world.

    A better option exists.

    If we focus on the same technology as before, but use our grip on the supply side to keep the price of this technology low (so as to make this tech accessible for poorer countries) we will be able to lead the world into an era of prosperity the likes of which we have never seen.

  10. #90
    The King Liason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    You have a very weird interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, if you think that. It clearly states that humans have unalienable natural rights. They are not given by government, but are inherent to man's nature.
    Judging on the societal setup of the country, wouldn't some such rights be missing?
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

Similar Threads

  1. Tariffs
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-09-2011, 02:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO