Is America heading towards fascism?

Post Reply New Topic

Private property is a violent cultural construct forced upon individuals. Ownership overland is as crazy as ownership of air. Capitalism is the complete opposite of liberty. I never said I want to dictate anyone. Why are you straw manning? It's the land owners that are doing dictating. Houses are for attended for personal use, the goods served at restaurants are not.

So you think Libertarianism is just Landlordism?

I think its many things. I think right libertarians are wrong for assuming private property is undeniably legitimate, and that every poor unemployed person is so because of laziness and or mistakes they made in their life. I'm surprised their are libertarian capitalists here considering how many people on the spectrum struggle with the capitalist system. Capitalism seems to work best for hyper social people with lots of connections. I would love the freedom to go out and grow my own food and build my own shelter, but I'm not allowed to do that on any of the land around me. Capitalism is forcing me to be dependent on others, I don't know why so many people think it's individualism.

There are a few successful autistics like Bill Gates but their attitude is "as long as I've got mine who cares about you". If they could just understand that not every autistic can be the next Bill Bates.

About homesteading, the landlords says this is not Biblical and just a bunch of Fidel Castro commie land reform. But I question this.

Yes.

thank god for bill gates sr. and melinda french gates.

To embellish on these points, free market capitalism is a perfect fit to the libertarian mindset because of such a hypothetical situation. The owner in question has the right to refuse service. But if people feel he's doing so simply out of spite, they can actively take a role in spreading word of that kind of behavior. With the idea that if the local markets find distaste in the owner's behavior, they will choose not to patronize and his business will dry up as a result. Alternatively, if the pundit doesn't make his case or is found to be exaggerating or untruthful, the market will ignore him and continue to patronize. This is the idea of "voting with one's dollars".

The other point made is that business men these days are more concerned with business than outdated dogma. A customer is a customer, so long as he has money and is willing to spend it in our establishment.

The fact of the matter is, though, during segregation, white customers wouldn't have withheld their patronage of such businesses. Far from it, they provided a focal point of resistance against desegregation. And keeping blacks second class citizens was more important to many whites in segregated states than even making money. Again, the simple right to eat at the same lunch counter as whites was as much a victory as gaining the right to vote, because it eventually established social equality for black Americans among whites.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Which is their right. One has the right to boycott and one has the right not to boycott.

In any case the owner of a restaurant has the right to provide service or withhold service from whomever he pleases. That is the nature of private ownership. Forcing a restaurant owner to cook for someone he does not want around him is involuntary servitude which is prohibited by the 13 th Amendment.

ruveyn

Please explain this statement. Private property is a fundamental part of individualism. Without private property, what is the value of the individual? Are you speaking purely of land ownership per your next statement?


What's wrong with owning land or air? If I'm using a certain amount of land or air toward a productive end, should someone else be able to come and remove the efforts of my labor? I can understand that simply planting a flag and claiming ownership might be "crazy", but taking ownership over a natural resource in order to develop it seems entirely reasonable.


Please explain this statement also. I don't see how capitalism restricts liberty, much less is a complete opposite.


Yes, you did say you want to dictate. Your statement that "tyranny is tyranny, no matter how small it is" was in response to ruveyn's defense of a small business owner's right to choose who he or she serves. You are arguing that the business owner shouldn't have that right. This is dictating what another person does.

There is no straw man argument here. My example is a direct application of your argument with your own qualification.

For me the Libertarians have a compelling argument. Can one really legislate morality? You can write civil rights laws, but none of these laws can change a persons heart so there must be a better way. But it is a 2 way street. Libertarians insist that laws protecting property rights remain on the books and that these laws should be vigorously enforced.

The underpants I have on at this moment is MY property and if you attempt to take them from me by force I just might get violent.

ruveyn

Do you define yourself with property? You can't own yourself because you are yourself. All forms of property are theft and coercion, we need to figure out what forms of property are justifiable. Private property causes hierarchical relationships; which kills freedom and individualism.

Monopolizing power over land and natural resources is not reasonable. I believe you should only own what you are using.

Capitalism prevents individuals from using land they would otherwise be able to use. Capitalism forces people to live at the mercy of bosses and landlords.

If you are a business with open doors, you should be serving everyone who walks in. Otherwise you steal the time of the individuals you refused to serve.

I don't want your underpants that's personal property.

All of us are the owners and guardians of our own bodies. Our time is ours except that which we sell or rent for some kind of compensation.

Property (i.e. possessions acknowledged to be held and controlled by their possessor) is absolutely necessary for human life. Property especially items taken from nature and not otherwise claimed is necessary to our existence. It is NOT theft.

ruveyn