mujeresliebres (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mujeresliebres) wrote,@ 2008-04-03 11:34:00 |
|
My rebuttal to this http://tom-sizemore.livejournal.com/36342.html.
I know you posted shorter answers "to end the debate", but please consider the fact that I posted long answers specifically to back up my points with evidence.
That said.
(1) On slavery. Stop changing the argument.
First you said "Paying off the slave owners was done everywhere else in this hemisphere, as opposed to say, starting a war that killed 600,000 people." - Which is wrong - slave owners were not paid everywhere else in this hemisphere.
Then you said "Ron Paul wasn't saying that slave owners deserve to be paid, he was saying that this was the historical trend, and so the Civil War didn't need to be fought." Which is still wrong. It was not an historical trend to pay off the slave owners. And the countries, colonies at the time, that did do it are in no way comparable to the US' situation.
Now you are saying, "Okay. Regardless of the details. Nothing you've said disproves the fact that slavery was eventually abolished in the entire Western Hemisphere, and only in the US and Haiti did it involve military action. Furthermore, this whole discussion ignores the fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist that openly said that he would free all the slaves or none, whatever it took to preserve the Union (i.e. the supremacy of his centralized authority)." Ok dude. Seriously. I proved you wrong on all your other points because clearly you didn't have the historical background, and now you're just saying that we should have freed the slaves like all the other countries - as if that wouldn't have caused the war. When SC seceded specifically to keep slavery? Please. Umm yeah Lincoln is problematic sure, but how is that relevantZ We were talking about your hero Ron Paul.
"Stopping burglary and economic fraud are also "interferences in the economy", but, since these interferences protect property rights, they are justified from a Libertarian perspective. Since everyone's body is also his or her property, ending slavery is also a justified interference."
It seems far more likely that a libertarian stance at the time would have been to support states' rights and support the secession of the South.
However, if the libertarian perspective would allow the federal government to interfere to ensure personal liberty, then what is so wrong with the Civil War? Quite clearly no other country that freed their slaves (1) had as many (2) had a regional divide of slave owners e.g. The North and South (3) had a regional economic divide between industrialization and agrarianism and (4) had a history of Southern farmers wanting to secede. In short the country was a powder keg in 1860, and the only way to prevent war would have been to (1) allow the South to secede or (2) have had someone who wasn't perceived to be a radical abolitionist elected president. Buying the slaves wasn't a viable option, and clearly the threat of general manumission was what caused the South to secede.
Ron Paul's statement was ahistorical and ignorant.
Edit: In case this wasn't clear paying the slave owners would also have been incredibly immoral and would legitimize the institution of slavery.
(2) I'm not even sure where this argument came from, but Milton Friedman is comparing an agrarian society that is headed towards industrialization. Increased industrialization within an industrial society does cause unemployment. And seriously using the US economy in 1776 as an example to how the present day economy functions is completely ludicrous.
Furthermore increased technology does not necessarily equal an increase in living standards. If there is better technology, but only a few can afford it then increased technology means nothing to them. Look at sweat shop workers in Indonesia. They live in squalor to make clothing for US consumers. The garment industry has been there for 20 years with almost no impact on poverty levels. And in the US where we've developed so much miraculous technology real median wages have dropped over 20% since 1973.
My examples weren't meant to suggest that every state has an exactly the same economy. It was instead meant to show that in economics not everything has a straight line. Which is why I also included the example of poverty levels.
If you employ 10 workers at $7 an hour, and the minimum wage increases to $100 an hour then sure you'll have to lay off workers. If it is raised to $8 an hour how many will you lay off? Maybe you won't actually need to lay off any because there is a difference between the two and to compare raising the wage to $100 / hr to raising it to $7 is completely specious.
Consider this, "...[opponents of raising the minimum wage] might even be right about consequences were the increase large enough to bring the minimum wage up to something like a "living wage" of $12 an hour. There's no evidence that the federal minimum wage has ever affected employment, even at its 1968 peak of $1.58--$7.71 in 2006 equivalent dollars, as computed by Economic Policy Institute economists. Opponents also might be right if the minimum wage were easily enforceable. In reality, small businesses often pay their workers off the books, or report fewer hours than actually worked."
(3) I really have no idea what you're talking about. "For example, it is wrong to say that men as a group are acting to repress women, therefore man A, as a representative of men-as-a-group, must be guilty of repression (by association) against women B, who, in turn, must be a victim of repression (by association), regardless of the individual actions of man A or woman B.(This is the doctrine of "The Patriarchy", which is very popular at college.) " What the hell does that even mean? How many gender studies courses have you taken?
I certainly don't blame individual men for patriarchy but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Men, in general, benefit from patriarchy. White people benefit from structural racism. Those statements don't mean that every white person is a racist or every man is a sexist.
"Men are more likely to be rapists than women are, because men, biologically, tend to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. This is not society's fault. Claiming it is implies that all men are programmed by society to be potential rapists, in order to collectively control women"
I have to think you really don't understand what I've said. At all.
We live in a patriarchal society. How often does a rapist get off because a jury puts the victim on trial - "what was she wearing" "why did she go into his room" etc. As if the answers to any of those questions imply that a woman deserves to be raped. This isn't about a group of men sitting in a room planning ways to dominate women for control. It is much more insidious. My examples were not meant to say that men are naturally rapists, but that we do not live in an equal society. One way that that inequality can be simply demonstrated is to show that women have different fears than men.
Black women are 4x more likely to die in childbirth than white women. That doesn't mean white women (or men) are sitting around laughing maniacally planning those deaths. However it does mean that black women don't have equal access to hospitals, pre-natal care, neighborhoods that are have good grocery stores and good hospitals etc. Racism (just as sexism) isn't limited to mere bigotry - it is structural in nature.
(4) My point once again wasn't to argue abortion. This was initially about Ron Paul's statement on the matter. And it comes down to rights. My point being that Ron Paul was willing to create legislation that negated the rights of women. Consider this libertarian perspective.
"Doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside the body of the woman?
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb. "
I was not arguing the morality or ethics of abortion merely pointing out that for Ron Paul respect for individual liberty does not extend to pregnant women.
I say we end this argument when Mr. Sizemore has remained clean and sober for more than a year without the help of a prison system. Do you think that will be before or after the return of Jesus?
I know you posted shorter answers "to end the debate", but please consider the fact that I posted long answers specifically to back up my points with evidence.
That said.
(1) On slavery. Stop changing the argument.
First you said "Paying off the slave owners was done everywhere else in this hemisphere, as opposed to say, starting a war that killed 600,000 people." - Which is wrong - slave owners were not paid everywhere else in this hemisphere.
Then you said "Ron Paul wasn't saying that slave owners deserve to be paid, he was saying that this was the historical trend, and so the Civil War didn't need to be fought." Which is still wrong. It was not an historical trend to pay off the slave owners. And the countries, colonies at the time, that did do it are in no way comparable to the US' situation.
Now you are saying, "Okay. Regardless of the details. Nothing you've said disproves the fact that slavery was eventually abolished in the entire Western Hemisphere, and only in the US and Haiti did it involve military action. Furthermore, this whole discussion ignores the fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist that openly said that he would free all the slaves or none, whatever it took to preserve the Union (i.e. the supremacy of his centralized authority)." Ok dude. Seriously. I proved you wrong on all your other points because clearly you didn't have the historical background, and now you're just saying that we should have freed the slaves like all the other countries - as if that wouldn't have caused the war. When SC seceded specifically to keep slavery? Please. Umm yeah Lincoln is problematic sure, but how is that relevantZ We were talking about your hero Ron Paul.
"Stopping burglary and economic fraud are also "interferences in the economy", but, since these interferences protect property rights, they are justified from a Libertarian perspective. Since everyone's body is also his or her property, ending slavery is also a justified interference."
It seems far more likely that a libertarian stance at the time would have been to support states' rights and support the secession of the South.
However, if the libertarian perspective would allow the federal government to interfere to ensure personal liberty, then what is so wrong with the Civil War? Quite clearly no other country that freed their slaves (1) had as many (2) had a regional divide of slave owners e.g. The North and South (3) had a regional economic divide between industrialization and agrarianism and (4) had a history of Southern farmers wanting to secede. In short the country was a powder keg in 1860, and the only way to prevent war would have been to (1) allow the South to secede or (2) have had someone who wasn't perceived to be a radical abolitionist elected president. Buying the slaves wasn't a viable option, and clearly the threat of general manumission was what caused the South to secede.
Ron Paul's statement was ahistorical and ignorant.
Edit: In case this wasn't clear paying the slave owners would also have been incredibly immoral and would legitimize the institution of slavery.
(2) I'm not even sure where this argument came from, but Milton Friedman is comparing an agrarian society that is headed towards industrialization. Increased industrialization within an industrial society does cause unemployment. And seriously using the US economy in 1776 as an example to how the present day economy functions is completely ludicrous.
Furthermore increased technology does not necessarily equal an increase in living standards. If there is better technology, but only a few can afford it then increased technology means nothing to them. Look at sweat shop workers in Indonesia. They live in squalor to make clothing for US consumers. The garment industry has been there for 20 years with almost no impact on poverty levels. And in the US where we've developed so much miraculous technology real median wages have dropped over 20% since 1973.
My examples weren't meant to suggest that every state has an exactly the same economy. It was instead meant to show that in economics not everything has a straight line. Which is why I also included the example of poverty levels.
If you employ 10 workers at $7 an hour, and the minimum wage increases to $100 an hour then sure you'll have to lay off workers. If it is raised to $8 an hour how many will you lay off? Maybe you won't actually need to lay off any because there is a difference between the two and to compare raising the wage to $100 / hr to raising it to $7 is completely specious.
Consider this, "...[opponents of raising the minimum wage] might even be right about consequences were the increase large enough to bring the minimum wage up to something like a "living wage" of $12 an hour. There's no evidence that the federal minimum wage has ever affected employment, even at its 1968 peak of $1.58--$7.71 in 2006 equivalent dollars, as computed by Economic Policy Institute economists. Opponents also might be right if the minimum wage were easily enforceable. In reality, small businesses often pay their workers off the books, or report fewer hours than actually worked."
(3) I really have no idea what you're talking about. "For example, it is wrong to say that men as a group are acting to repress women, therefore man A, as a representative of men-as-a-group, must be guilty of repression (by association) against women B, who, in turn, must be a victim of repression (by association), regardless of the individual actions of man A or woman B.(This is the doctrine of "The Patriarchy", which is very popular at college.) " What the hell does that even mean? How many gender studies courses have you taken?
I certainly don't blame individual men for patriarchy but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Men, in general, benefit from patriarchy. White people benefit from structural racism. Those statements don't mean that every white person is a racist or every man is a sexist.
"Men are more likely to be rapists than women are, because men, biologically, tend to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. This is not society's fault. Claiming it is implies that all men are programmed by society to be potential rapists, in order to collectively control women"
I have to think you really don't understand what I've said. At all.
We live in a patriarchal society. How often does a rapist get off because a jury puts the victim on trial - "what was she wearing" "why did she go into his room" etc. As if the answers to any of those questions imply that a woman deserves to be raped. This isn't about a group of men sitting in a room planning ways to dominate women for control. It is much more insidious. My examples were not meant to say that men are naturally rapists, but that we do not live in an equal society. One way that that inequality can be simply demonstrated is to show that women have different fears than men.
Black women are 4x more likely to die in childbirth than white women. That doesn't mean white women (or men) are sitting around laughing maniacally planning those deaths. However it does mean that black women don't have equal access to hospitals, pre-natal care, neighborhoods that are have good grocery stores and good hospitals etc. Racism (just as sexism) isn't limited to mere bigotry - it is structural in nature.
(4) My point once again wasn't to argue abortion. This was initially about Ron Paul's statement on the matter. And it comes down to rights. My point being that Ron Paul was willing to create legislation that negated the rights of women. Consider this libertarian perspective.
"Doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside the body of the woman?
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb. "
I was not arguing the morality or ethics of abortion merely pointing out that for Ron Paul respect for individual liberty does not extend to pregnant women.
I say we end this argument when Mr. Sizemore has remained clean and sober for more than a year without the help of a prison system. Do you think that will be before or after the return of Jesus?
