John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

[michaelsuede]

John Stossel discusses the experience of his liberal brainwashing at the hands of Marxist college professors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcbbG4s6ZRQ

I love the opening comments made by one of the students who says:

"Liberty is an extension of my body. Because I own my body, I own the product of my labor. I own the property I produce with my labor. Therefore no one has a right to take my property without my consent."

Indeed, his comments form the core of the non-aggression principle, which is predicated on self-ownership and the property rights that follow from that.

If one takes a moment to think about it, the libertarian definition of property rights is the only definition that allows for peaceful co-existence. All other definitions of property rights ultimately entail the initiation of violence, which is distinctly different than the use of violence for self-defense or defense of property.

The moral philosophy of libertarian property rights is spelled out in this fantastic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

If we say that someone else has a higher claim on the product of my labor than I do, then it obviously follows that I am not the owner of the product of my labor. I am merely a allowed to keep an arbitrary portion of what I produce, which my owner has deemed appropriate. My owner may arbitrarily change his mind about how much he will allow me to keep as my own from time to time.

If I don't ultimately own the product of my labor, then it follows that I must not own myself. Someone else must have a higher claim on my person than I do in order to make me work for them by taking what I produce against my consent. This is tantamount to slavery.

Given that people will naturally defend themselves AND that which they have labored to produce, the initiation of violence (or the threat thereof) is necessary in order for someone else to take that which I have labored to produce against my consent.

This state of affairs becomes readily apparent if one considers how slavery operated in the South. The slaves did not own the product of their labor, their masters claimed that for themselves, and then handed out a portion of what the slaves had produced back to the slaves.

The only difference between the Southern slavery of blacks and the way tax slavery operates today is that rather than directly taking the physical product of a slave's labor, the State takes the money a slave has bartered his final product for. This allows slaves to work in the occupation of their choosing, while ownership of the slave's labor is still ultimately retained by someone other than the slave himself.

This use of coercion has resulted in modern day "tax farms" which most people call "nation states."

Learn more about tax farms and the wars and misery they have caused the human race here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

The initiation of violence (or threat thereof) necessarily result when the self-ownership principle is not enforced by society.

If we look to those countries who are worst off in this world, they have all had a long history of ignoring private property rights. Only those countries who have had a history of strong (relatively speaking) property rights enforcement have become prosperous as nation states.

Any deviation from this path has leads to nothing but human misery.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hate that guy. His view of reality is distorted and yet he is so convinced it isn't. Libertarian property rights fail comes from their complete denial that what one does with one's property can affect another's property and rights.

 

[michaelsuede]

I hate that guy. His view of reality is distorted and yet he is so convinced it isn't. Libertarian property rights fail comes from their complete denial that what one does with one's property can affect another's property and rights.

Actually, that's where other definitions of property rights fail.

The libertarian philosophy of property rights is the only definition that consistently allows a person to seek retribution from those who damage or steal their property.

If someone damages my property under libertarian property rights, I can sue them or legitimately take back that which was lost or damaged.

If someone damages my property under our current system by polluting it, the State may decide it will arbitrarily limit the amount that person has to compensate me (like it did for BP), or it will fine that person and then keep the money itself (like it did for BP).

Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government.

Under a libertarian system of property rights, people would not be deprived of justice like under our current system.

Hating John does not make his assertions wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
If one takes a moment to think about it, the libertarian definition of property rights is the only definition that allows for peaceful co-existence. All other definitions of property rights ultimately entail the initiation of violence, which is distinctly different than the use of violence for self-defense or defense of property.

Care to provide an example of this bizarre claim?

....The moral philosophy of libertarian property rights is spelled out in this fantastic video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Having recently watched "Inside Job" which documents how the failure of governments to regulate greedy bastards screwed the world recently, I find this video to be tripe.

...Given that people will naturally defend themselves AND that which they have labored to produce, the initiation of violence (or the threat thereof) is necessary in order for someone else to take that which I have labored to produce against my consent.

What does this even mean? Are you suggesting we 'redistribute' all the owned factories and farmland to the employees? Where does the large corporation with thousands of shareholders fit into this scheme?

...Learn more about tax farms and the wars and misery they have caused the human race here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

The initiation of violence (or threat thereof) necessarily result when the self-ownership principle is not enforced by society.

So society is supposed to "enforce" the freedom from government?

What am I missing here?

...If we look to those countries who are worst off in this world, they have all had a long history of ignoring private property rights. Only those countries who have had a history of strong (relatively speaking) property rights enforcement have become prosperous as nation states.

Any deviation from this path has lead to nothing but human misery.

Yeah right. There's no human misery in the US only billionaires.

 

[michaelsuede]

I'm not here to convince you (specifically you and others like you) that I am right, because you have long ago forsaken morality in favor of looting.

I am here to convince those who know there is something fundamentally wrong with the way our society operates.

The videos provide all the information necessary to refute your nonsense.

 

[geni]

I'm not here to convince you (specifically you and others like you) that I am right, because you have long ago forsaken morality in favor of looting.

By what right do you claim things that you are too weak to defend?

 

[michaelsuede]

By what right do you claim things that you are too weak to defend?

So you are saying if someone is weak, we should steal from them?

 

[PGH]

So you are saying if someone is weak, we should steal from them?

No. That's what would happen constantly under the system of non-government you propose.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, that's where other definitions of property rights fail.

The libertarian philosophy of property rights is the only definition that consistently allows a person to seek retribution from those who damage or steal their property.

If someone damages my property under libertarian property rights, I can sue them or legitimately take back that which was lost or damaged.

Do you not understand the concept of competing or overlapping needs?

I own my house. My neighbor who owns his house decides to let drug dealers take over his house that is his property right to do. My house's value plummets because I live next door to drug dealers.

Some corporation owns a polluting factory. The pollution contaminates nearby air and water but no one owns that air and water. Did they have a right to pollute? Who is supposed to hold them accountable if governments are wrong to impose anything that interferes with the polluting factory owner's property rights?

If someone damages my property under our current system by polluting it, the State may decide it will arbitrarily limit the amount that person has to compensate me (like it did for BP), or it will fine that person and then keep the money itself (like it did for BP).

The state? Who is this state?

Under a libertarian system of property rights, people would not be deprived of justice like under our current system.

Hating John does not make his assertions wrong.

I only hate Stossel because of his assertions. I don't know the man personally. He might be a nice guy if one doesn't talk about this Libertarian fantasy with him.



The problem with Stossel's ideas are not that far from the problem with Marxism. Both are based on idealistic fantasy. Neither is practical or even feasible in the real world.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You can go to Libertopia. In our world, that country is Somolia.

 

[michaelsuede]

Do you not understand the concept of competing or overlapping needs?

I own my house. My neighbor who owns his house decides to let drug dealers take over his house that is his property right to do. My house's value plummets because I live next door to drug dealers.

Drug dealers are only a problem because drugs are illegal. Without a State, drugs would be legalized, hence no drug dealer problem. But that aside, you could sue your neighbor if he was engaging in any activity that harmed your property's value.
However, generally speaking depending on the incident, people have a right to homestead behaviors. For example, if you move in next to a hog farm, you would not be able to legitimately sue him for the smell. However, if a hog farmer moved in across from you, you would have a right to sue him for the smell.

Some corporation owns a polluting factory. The pollution contaminates nearby air and water but no one owns that air and water. Did they have a right to pollute? Who is supposed to hold them accountable if governments are wrong to impose anything that interferes with the polluting factory owner's property rights?

The state? Who is this state?

The private system of justice that you are suing him under.

The State is not necessary to have law and order. The State is the exact opposite of law and order because it is predicated on the use of coercion to fund itself.

 

[PGH]

Drug dealers are only a problem because drugs are illegal. Without a State, drugs would be legalized, hence no drug dealer problem. But that aside, you could sue your neighbor if he was engaging in any activity that harmed your property's value.
However, generally speaking depending on the incident, people have a right to homestead behaviors. For example, if you move in next to a hog farm, you would not be able to legitimately sue him for the smell. However, if a hog farmer moved in across from you, you would have a right to sue him for the smell.

Because many of us were just thinking, "You know what this country needs? More crystal meth."

The private system of justice that you are suing him under.

The State is not necessary to have law and order. The State is the exact opposite of law and order because it is predicated on the use of coercion to fund itself.

The private system of justice, bought and paid for. Now THERE'S a fair trial if I ever heard one! After the privately funded security forces tear you out of your home with no right to due process or privacy.

 

[timhau]

Wouldn't this nonsense be more at home at the Social Issues or Politics forum?

 

[respect]

Drug dealers are only a problem because drugs are illegal. Without a State, drugs would be legalized, hence no drug dealer problem. But that aside, you could sue your neighbor if he was engaging in any activity that harmed your property's value.
However, generally speaking depending on the incident, people have a right to homestead behaviors. For example, if you move in next to a hog farm, you would not be able to legitimately sue him for the smell. However, if a hog farmer moved in across from you, you would have a right to sue him for the smell.



The private system of justice that you are suing him under.

The State is not necessary to have law and order. The State is the exact opposite of law and order because it is predicated on the use of coercion to fund itself.

How are you going to file all of these lawsuits without the state?

 

[AdMan]

Wouldn't this nonsense be more at home at the Social Issues or Politics forum?

A better place might be the Humor forum.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not here to convince you (specifically you and others like you) that I am right, because you have long ago forsaken morality in favor of looting.

Have I met you? Do you know anything about me at all other than that we don't agree on the best economic models? Just what have I looted and who did I steal it from? You sound like a Commie.

I am here to convince those who know there is something fundamentally wrong with the way our society operates.

Well we agree on that. I just happen to think the masses need to assert their rights or the rich will turn the masses into peasants. You seem to think the rich have all the rights because they 'own stuff'. Or something like that.

Tell me how a poor person gets along in your system? Are they just out of luck? Does society help them or ignore their plight? Suppose there aren't enough 'volunteers' to help the ownerless class? Should we tolerate their children begging in the street? Let evolution take its course?

The videos provide all the information necessary to refute your nonsense.

Those videos are oversimplified idealism. They are unrealistic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can go to Libertopia. In our world, that country is Somolia.

Interesting example. I'll have to bring that one up with 'theist turned skeptic falling back into the religion of Libertarianism', Michael Shermer when he comes to Seattle. Last time I asked him if we'd be better off with a privatized police force like Blackwater than our current system of public police and Shermer said Blackwater would make a fine police force.

 

[michaelsuede]

You can go to Libertopia. In our world, that country is Somolia.

Somalia is not in a state of true anarchy, there are many outside governmental organizations injecting themselves into the affairs of the Somali people. Further, tribal warlords are operating states within the region known as Somalia. They are governments unto themselves. Thus, the regions they control are not in a state of anarchy.

The Somali people have suffered under socialist dictatorial rule for a long time, which eventually lead to the collapse of the economy. Obviously such a state results in chaos.

Had the Somali State left the economy alone, Somalia would not be in the economic hell that it currently is experiencing.

Claiming that anarchy is the cause of Somalia's troubles is a laughable farce.

This 2006 article highlights the problems that accompany a tribal state, and some of the benefits:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/world/africa/10iht-journal.2166680.html

Since the ouster, Somalia has progressed rather than regressed. The reason should be obvious of course. Less government induces economic growth.

 

[TmoonII]

I like the concept but just like conceptual art it takes multiple generations after the artist, and media infiltration, for the majority to understand or appreciate it.

 

[Garrette]

I need only go as far as this claim to realize the emptiness of the model, regardless if I have engaged in the looting of other people's labor or not:

"Liberty is an extension of my body. Because I own my body, I own the product of my labor. I own the property I produce with my labor. Therefore no one has a right to take my property without my consent."

This could be conceivably true only insofar as the labor were totally independent of the labor (and ownership of the product of labor) of everyone else. If instead, as is most likely to be the case, your labor and its products are contingent upon someone else's provision of some of the resources (i.e., products of others' labors), then this claim is vacuous.