Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Objectivism

[Tallpine]

No, although your comment reads more anarchist than libertarian.

Is not working to support the other 50+ percent of the population, being told what you can and can't put in your body, being told what kind of toliet you must have in your house, being told that you must buy health insurance, and being subject to search anywhere you go, etc etc etc, slavery

[Balog]

Is not working to support the other 50+ percent of the population, being told what you can and can't put in your body, being told what kind of toliet you must have in your house, being told that you must buy health insurance, and being subject to search anywhere you go, etc etc etc, slavery

Depends on what style slavery you're referring to, but no. That or just about everyone who's ever lived has been a slave.

[cordex]

That or just about everyone who's ever lived has been a slave.

It really doesn't take much study of history to come to that conclusion.

[Perd Hapley]

The Founders used the term "slavery" about as loosely as Tallpine does, so I can't fault him. (I think it's more amusing when they use the term "despotic sway." I just find it funny, for some reason.)

TBS, anyone who has been a slave would probably laugh out loud at such cavalier usage. There is slavery, and then there is honest-to-goodness, send you to the workhouse to be tortured if you don't like the wife they picked for you slavery.

[cordex]

TBS, anyone who has been a slave would probably laugh out loud at such cavalier usage. There is slavery, and then there is honest-to-goodness, send you to the workhouse to be tortured if you don't like the wife they picked for you slavery.

Slavery is when a person is owned by another person or group of people.

In the bible there are instructions on how one should properly treat one's slaves, as well as how a slave who has been well treated can choose to remain in servitude after their period of service has been fulfilled.  Slaves can be lovingly cared for or senselessly tortured. A slave can be paid some of the value they bring their master and own property - even raise money to buy their own freedom, or be barely kept alive and given no possessions of their own. The defining aspect is not whether or not they have had the skin whipped off their backs, but whether they are owned by someone else. 

A slave with no whip-weilding taskmaster, a long leash and who keeps some of their pay is a slave nonetheless.

[Perd Hapley]

Slavery is when a person is owned by another person or group of people.

In the bible there are instructions on how one should properly treat one's slaves, as well as how a slave who has been well treated can choose to remain in servitude after their period of service has been fulfilled.  Slaves can be lovingly cared for or senselessly tortured. A slave can be paid some of the value they bring their master and own property - even raise money to buy their own freedom, or be barely kept alive and given no possessions of their own. The defining aspect is not whether or not they have had the skin whipped off their backs, but whether they are owned by someone else. 

A slave with no whip-weilding taskmaster, a long leash and who keeps some of their pay is a slave nonetheless.

Okay, so...

[cordex]

Okay, so...

Just saying that slavery is not defined by how poorly the slave is treated. It seemed you were dismissive of the idea that someone was a real slave unless their master tortured them for petty reasons.

[roo_ster]

I don't think I completely agree when it comes to classifying Libertarianism as utopian.  Libertarian philosophy is no more utopian than any other political philosophy.  It is true that Libertarians believe that some things that are being done today are wrong and that individuals and society as a whole would be more effectively and more morally served through the application of the Libertarian philosophy.  However, that is not to say that Libertarians necessarily believe that if they snapped their fingers and the world were Libertarian that there would be no problems any more than Republicans believe that if every office were held by a Conservative Republican that there would be no problems.  Members of every political philosophy believe that to the extent that their doctrine is implemented things will be better, more efficient or more moral.  If that were not so, why fight for their side?  Aside from rent seeking, I mean.

That said, you are spot on when it comes to tending to ignore historical and cultural context.  For instance, when Rothbard was working out his use of a woman's property rights and opposition involuntary servitude to defend abortion, he realized that the rational extension of his logic would have to allow infanticide - at least through exposure and neglect.  After all, if a fetus has no right to infringe on a woman's self-ownership by occupying her body, how could he justify requiring a mother to feed, clothe, clean, and otherwise care for an infant after it had been born?  If a neglected infant dies, Rothbard asserts, it does so because it cannot justly lay claim to the mother's time, money and effort to care for it. 

I reject that position for two reasons.  Firstly (and rationally), because both the mother and father were involved in (hopefully) voluntary decisions and choices that directly led to the conception of the child, they must therefore accept responsibility through the implicit agreement thereby entered into for caring for that offspring to some minimum standard, at least until they can find willing parents to take the child.  Secondly (and emotionally), my cultural conditioning causes me to reject with horror the idea that an live infant should be subject to fatal neglect without consequence to the responsible party.  On the other hand, if I were from another culture that is more tolerant of infanticide I would likely not have that same reaction.

To be fair to Rothbard, he also believed that infanticide wouldn't be a huge problem because in a free society, infants would be a marketable commodity and the parents of unwanted infants would have an incentive to provide for them until it could be sold to parents who do want the baby.

Compare the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism vs those of the founders to see what i mean.

[Tallpine]

The point remains that 90% of people are content with some substantial degree of dependency and submission, of which I am not, nor do I see why I should be just because they are.

There are also the ones that always want to be in charge of everyone else.

[dogmush]

The point remains that 90% of people are content with some substantial degree of dependency and submission, of which I am not, nor do I see why I should be just because they are.

There are also the ones that always want to be in charge of everyone else.

Straight answer?  Because the 90% has men with guns that will make you submit.

[Ned Hamford]

Given how loaded the words are, I think there much akin in terms like slave and rape. I think we can all agree there is a very wide spectrum that encompass such terms; but that doesn't go as far as to approach a good or even neutral interpretation.
Being well aware of the spectrum and how the far negative ends still exist in our world (IE: Honor killings and transnational sexual slavery), I don't think it a black mark against a person to grade the concepts by necessity of rationing one's outrage and efforts; as to do otherwise is absurd.  The personal pulled over on pretense and left waiting for an hour before being let go gets some sympathy; but the wrongfully imprisoned for a decade or more get the outrage.  The technical rape (both drunk and willing, one week early in the wrong state ect) and the wage slave; are certainly not things condoned or endorsed, but if you sit victims of the other end of the scale next to them; I know where my attention and efforts go first. 

[Balog]

Just saying that slavery is not defined by how poorly the slave is treated. It seemed you were dismissive of the idea that someone was a real slave unless their master tortured them for petty reasons.

Slavery has a real definition. "There are limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes" does not make that definition, and pretending it does in order to use loaded emotional language just cheapens the term. Much like saying that someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl is a "pedophile child molester."

[Tallpine]

Slavery has a real definition. "There are limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes" does not make that definition, and pretending it does in order to use loaded emotional language just cheapens the term. Much like saying that someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl is a "pedophile child molester."

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote in context:   

So what you're saying is that because some or most people prefer to be slaves that I am obligated to be a slave 

[Perd Hapley]

Just saying that slavery is not defined by how poorly the slave is treated. It seemed you were dismissive of the idea that someone was a real slave unless their master tortured them for petty reasons.

It seems you did not read what I wrote, or were too busy reading things into it to note the meaning thereof.

[Balog]

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote in context:   

Maybe you should read the post I quoted and was replying to?

That being said, your original post is still wrong. %90 of people do not want to be slaves, in the actual definition of the word.

[Tallpine]

Maybe you should read the post I quoted and was replying to?

That being said, your original post is still wrong. %90 of people do not want to be slaves, in the actual definition of the word.

Yet they are quite comfortable giving up liberty for a false promise of security.   

[Balog]

Yet they are quite comfortable giving up liberty for a false promise of security.   

Not the same as being a slave.

And a lot of the mala prohibum laws are about maintaining standards of civil behaviour.

[cordex]

Slavery has a real definition. "There are limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes" does not make that definition, and pretending it does in order to use loaded emotional language just cheapens the term.

Then what is your preferred definition of a slave?

Much like saying that someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl is a "pedophile child molester."

As MillCreek recently taught us in another thread, the proper term there would be "hebephile child molester."  Someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl does in fact meet the legal definition of a child molester in states where the age of consent is 18, do they not?

It seems you did not read what I wrote, or were too busy reading things into it to note the meaning thereof.

My apologies.

[Balog]

Then what is your preferred definition of a slave?

This one is fine.

Slavery is when a person is owned by another person or group of people.

As MillCreek recently taught us in another thread, the proper term there would be "hebephile child molester."  Someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl does in fact meet the legal definition of a child molester in states where the age of consent is 18, do they not?

That's spelled incorrectly, by the way.

I suppose that depends on the individual state's laws and legal definitions, but it's still silly. Laws are frequently silly and nonsensical.

[Perd Hapley]

By using "slavery" to refer to life under an oppressive regime, Grumpy Old Tallpine is squarely within the best tradition of Western political rhetoric. The Founders, many of whom knew from experience that they were NOT literally slaves, nonetheless spoke of slavery in the less literal sense. They were not wrong to do so, even if they were sometimes ironic.

GOT is complaining of a lack of self-ownership among supposed free men. "Limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes," can mean a lot of things, and GOT was talking about excessive limits and absurd taxation. "Working to support the other 50+ percent of the population, being told what you can and can't put in your body, being told what kind of toliet you must have in your house, being told that you must buy health insurance, and being subject to search anywhere you go, etc etc etc..." Is that literal slavery? No, but not everything is meant in the most literal sense.

[cordex]

This one is fine.

So the only disagreement is whether or not governments "own" the governed.  I propose that if any other group were to exert the amount of ownership over a people that a government does it would be called slavery.

That's spelled incorrectly, by the way.

I think it's spelled correctly, but is the wrong term.  Ephebophile would be more correct, I think.

I suppose that depends on the individual state's laws and legal definitions, but it's still silly. Laws are frequently silly and nonsensical.

Yes, many laws are silly.

[Balog]

So the only disagreement is whether or not governments "own" the governed.  I propose that if any other group were to exert the amount of ownership over a people that a government does it would be called slavery.
I think it's spelled correctly, but is the wrong term.  Ephebophile would be more correct, I think.
Yes, many laws are silly.

If basically everyone who has ever lived is a slave by mere virtue of living as part of civilization then the terms ceases to have meaning.

[cordex]

If basically everyone who has ever lived is a slave by mere virtue of living as part of civilization then the terms ceases to have meaning.

First of all, I do understand what you are saying, but the point of contention is that you see slavery as black and white rather than a continuum of oppression.

Historically, the vast majority of people were indeed slaves in an explicit fashion that I think even you would agree qualifies for the term.  Ignoring some interesting tribal arrangements like the Irish and some African groups, government has meant slavery to that government. Serfdom, peasantry, debt-bondage, indentured servitude, conscription, and outright chattel slavery were the norm for the vast majority in "civilization" throughout recorded history. 

A slave may well be well treated, content with their situation and what freedoms or possessions they retain, but a happy slave is not the same thing as self ownership.

[Tallpine]

Can we all agree that house elves are slaves 

 


And Hermione is much more the philosophical sort than Harry 

[Balog]

First of all, I do understand what you are saying, but the point of contention is that you see slavery as black and white rather than a continuum of oppression.

Historically, the vast majority of people were indeed slaves in an explicit fashion that I think even you would agree qualifies for the term.  Ignoring some interesting tribal arrangements like the Irish and some African groups, government has meant slavery to that government. Serfdom, peasantry, debt-bondage, indentured servitude, conscription, and outright chattel slavery were the norm for the vast majority in "civilization" throughout recorded history. 

A slave may well be well treated, content with their situation and what freedoms or possessions they retain, but a happy slave is not the same thing as self ownership.

I'd love to see your data on that claim.

And my point is that the .gov-citizen relationship is not the same as slavery, any more than the parent child relationship is slavery or a marriage is slavery because a husband and wife "own" each others bodies and have say over each others actions.

By using "slavery" to refer to life under an oppressive regime, Grumpy Old Tallpine is squarely within the best tradition of Western political rhetoric. The Founders, many of whom knew from experience that they were NOT literally slaves, nonetheless spoke of slavery in the less literal sense. They were not wrong to do so, even if they were sometimes ironic.

GOT is complaining of a lack of self-ownership among supposed free men. "Limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes," can mean a lot of things, and GOT was talking about excessive limits and absurd taxation. "Working to support the other 50+ percent of the population, being told what you can and can't put in your body, being told what kind of toliet you must have in your house, being told that you must buy health insurance, and being subject to search anywhere you go, etc etc etc..." Is that literal slavery? No, but not everything is meant in the most literal sense.

What's excessive and absurd? Please give me a definition.