posted on July 08, 2019 07:10 PM by
u/RokosMathPet
32
u/Snugglerific33 pointsat 1562626220.000000
Well, that king has more or less existed. Hes the Native Americans.
More or less, because of course they conquered each other too, but the
rightful owner was always some other Native American. They also had a
ridiculously low population density, so much so that the Europeans could
reasonably argue that “noone needs this much land”. Indeed, some tribes
had more land per person than certain petty lords in Europe. And yet we
feel bad about what happened to them, and the people who advocate
redistribution usually more so. Describing someone as a “king” in your
thought-experiment sure makes them sound unsympathetic.
There are only two options for the propertarians when it comes to
this issue: Ignore it, or engage in genocide
apologia.
> some tribes had more land per person than certain petty lords in Europe.
Here we see, in all its magnificent glory, the rationalists’ appreciation of sovereignty.
… , taking your stuff is not aggression unless it actually does
rightfully belong to you, and the whole project of the advocate for
redistribution is to try and prove that, in some cases, it doesn’t.
In fact if the supporter of redistribution is correct about who
rightfully owns what, then in the non-aggression principle would imply
that action resisting redistribution is impermissible, as it would be a
form of aggression.
Imagine reading this and not realizing how bankrupt all of this NAP
talk is.
No, it demonstrates that the mentality of 'being somewhat less wrong' is insufficient to support your rambling ideas about anything from politics to AI to fanfic.
>Also confused why you are referring to me that way, are you confused?
"Your" was the generic "you". Apologies for making it seem it was personal. It's not.
>Not mutually exclusive. You should know better.
Should I? How about you (u/vertr) say something more specific about "the attitude". Who's attitude are you referring to?
You didn't offer a narrative that indicated contradiction or conflict in any way, rather you just said 'no' and shot something else off (which I don't disagree with at all). That's not an effective response to an argument. I don't really think that shows good faith, and I'm not particularly interested in filling it out further so you can come up with something to disagree with. Please tell me if I'm incorrect.
> Please tell me if I'm incorrect.
Since your previous comment, I suspected that I had no idea what your argument actually was, so I asked for an expansion of a certain term, for clarity.
Please, simply expand on [your first comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/capfvh/rthemotte_discovers_the_idea_that/etb2q8r/). It's ambiguous to me.
The poster's rebuttal to the thread was essentially quoting the name of the website and the most basic goal of the movement. I was not-so-effectively arguing that was not a rational response or even really _responding_ at all, but instead an 'oorah', or signaling an association with a tribe and agreement with it. SO I think that does align with what you about a mentality not being enough, except that I go even further and suggest it doesn't even qualify as a response at all, just noting alignment (as shown by comparing themselves to "everybody else.") Let me know if that clarifies enough.
>but instead an 'oorah', or signaling an association with a tribe and agreement with it.
Agreed! And thanks.
> I was not-so-effectively arguing that
Agreed!
>Let me know if that clarifies enough.
Very much so. Let this be a lesson:
Gentlewomen should broke no cryptic, insider, passive aggressive references here. This is the SneerClub!
There are only two options for the propertarians when it comes to this issue: Ignore it, or engage in genocide apologia.
Imagine reading this and not realizing how bankrupt all of this NAP talk is.
Well there’s being 100% right about everything, then there’s being somewhat less wrong than just about everyone else.
Showing that the former isn’t true doesn’t prove the latter is false.