This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man.

[NghtRppr]

even the most cursory libertarian analysis of the last few hundred years would show that the vast vast majority of ownership is very much tied into a coercive and violent system and was gained through some combination of force, slavery, and state+corporate power

I agree with you but the reason why my answer still stands is because the keyword is record. There's no way to determine who the rightful owner is without some sort of record. If I bought a parcel of land from Alice, who bought it from Bob, who bought it from Carol, and so on, then all that is considered legitimate unless you can demonstrate that at some point it was stolen from someone, for example Carol stole it from Dave. Otherwise, the current titles can be considered legitimate. If you disagree then you have some sort of burden of proof. Also, I did mention "eminent domain" in the post you're responding to. So you can't say that I didn't already acknowledge your point before it was even made.

[lemonginger]

even the most cursory libertarian analysis of the last few hundred years would show that the vast vast majority of ownership is very much tied into a coercive and violent system and was gained through some combination of force, slavery, and state+corporate power

I agree with you but the reason why my answer still stands is because the keyword is record. There's no way to determine who the rightful owner is without some sort of record. If I bought a parcel of land from Alice, who bought it from Bob, who bought it from Carol, and so on, then all that is considered legitimate unless you can demonstrate that at some point it was stolen from someone, for example Carol stole it from Dave. Otherwise, the current titles can be considered legitimate. If you disagree then you have some sort of burden of proof. Also, I did mention "eminent domain" in the post you're responding to. So you can't say that I didn't already acknowledge your point before it was even made.

There is ample proof and historical record that all of North America was stolen from its indigenous population through State-sponsored conquest - first the European colonial powers, then the fledgling US government itself. There is no debate about this, it is all quite out there in the open. There is ample proof that common arable fields in the UK were stolen through enclosure laws via landlords empowered by the King - often in open armed conflict with the peasants. Your desire to rely on written land contracts that specify transfers from person to person as an unbroken chain is a nonsensical invention, as much of the land stolen from those that had a natural right to it (through mixing it with their labor, according to AnCaps) were often not using contracts or deeds and/or holding land in common and/or had no concept of individual private property.

[NghtRppr]

There is ample proof and historical record that all of North America was stolen from its indigenous population through State-sponsored conquest - first the European colonial powers, then the fledgling US government itself.

There is also ample proof and historical record that the indigenous populations stole land from each other. Do you honestly think that every Native American tribe obtained its land through homesteading and never a drop of blood was shed? My point is, even if we acknowledge the fact that there is some rightful owner, there's no way to return the land to the heirs of its rightful owner because there's no record of who that rightful owner is and no record of who the current heirs would be. Simply saying, "let's give it all back to the Native Americans" ignores the fact that they were just as likely to use violence in obtaining land as anyone else. What you suggest would be ideal if we had a god's-eye-view of history but we don't. Without some sort of record of actual theft, even acknowledging that theft took place, the rightful owners have no way to prove they have a legitimate claim.

[Basiley]

people are just people. not expect much from them and always plan failure-related plan[at least one]and/or fix stragegy/tactic/actions "on the fly", ie BEFORE too late.
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/larry-sinclair-obama-cocaine-gay-sex-november-1999-chicago-washington-dc-sean-hannity-rush-limbaugh-msm-wake-up-sinclairs-story/
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56626
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl3Nt4aWQ80

[lemonginger]

There is ample proof and historical record that all of North America was stolen from its indigenous population through State-sponsored conquest - first the European colonial powers, then the fledgling US government itself.

There is also ample proof and historical record that the indigenous populations stole land from each other. Do you honestly think that every Native American tribe obtained its land through homesteading and never a drop of blood was shed? My point is, even if we acknowledge the fact that there is some rightful owner, there's no way to return the land to the heirs of its rightful owner because there's no record of who that rightful owner is and no record of who the current heirs would be. Simply saying, "let's give it all back to the Native Americans" ignores the fact that they were just as likely to use violence in obtaining land as anyone else. What you suggest would be ideal if we had a god's-eye-view of history but we don't. Without some sort of record of actual theft, even acknowledging that theft took place, the rightful owners have no way to prove they have a legitimate claim.

Sure your assumption is that ownership is valid unless it can be proven otherwise. My assumption is that all ownership is invalid because it is tied up with such a grotesque and authoritarian system and any libertarian needs to honestly grapple with how a redistribution would occur. Not even necessarily as a practical exercise, since there will certainly not be some meeting "after the revolution" where we decide these things, but as a theoretical exercise in more sharply defining what we mean by concepts of liberty and justice.

Nowhere and at no time has the large-scale ownership of land come into being through the working of economic forces in the market. It is the result of military and political effort. Founded by violence, it has been upheld by violence and by that alone. As soon as the latifundia are drawn into the sphere of market transactions they begin to crumble, until at last they disappear completely. Neither at their formation or in their maintenance have economic causes operated. The great landed fortunes did not arise through the economic superiority of large-scale ownership, but by violent annexation outside the area of trade.... The non-economic origin of landed fortunes is clearly revealed by the fact that, as a rule, the expropriation by which they have been created in no way alters the manner of production. The old owner remains on the soil under a different legal title and continues to carry on production.

(Marx? no! Von Mises)

[NghtRppr]

Sure your assumption is that ownership is valid unless it can be proven otherwise.

Yes, exactly. I'm with Walter Block on this.

Suppose that 100 slaves worked on the plantation, but only one heir of any of them, B'', can now be found. Does B'' get the entire value of the landed estate (apart from the house), or only one percent of it. The answer is the latter. For possession is 9/10ths of the law. He who is the present land holder (W'' in our case) is always deemed to be the proper owner, unless evidence to the contrary can be adduced. But the claim of B'', stemming from the work of his grandfather, B, can at most encompass what he, B, that is, contributed to the enhancement of the value of the property. The other ninety-nine percent of the value of this land will remain with W'', until and unless other grandchildren of slaves come forth with proof of parentage.

Without evidence, what is left? Your word? A gut feeling? Even if we had a god's-eye-view of history, not every parcel of land that was once stolen currently has a living heir that it could or should be returned to. In those cases, it can be considered abandoned property and the current owner does have a legitimate claim to it as having homesteaded it. Even worse, since we don't have a god's-eye-view of history, it's irresponsible to overturn who knows how many legitimate property titles because of some vague notion of injustice that can't even be proven to have occurred.

That's not to say that all property titles should be upheld as legitimate. People that claim to own vast sums of land that hasn't been homesteaded actually don't have a legitimate claim to it, even if they paid for it, simply because there was no owner from which to buy it from. Just like people that claim to own parts of the moon don't have a legitimate claim to it because they haven't homesteaded it.

[AyeYo]

If someone is living in a libertarian society (thus being forced to abide by libertarian ideals and being affected by climate and forces created by libertarian society) and they are not libertarian, nor do they want to be libertarian, how is that ANY different than you living in this current society and claiming that  itis coercive and without voluntary choice simply because you don't agree with it?

So, you think you should be free to deny other people their freedoms? Then why should we respect your freedom? It's nonsensical. You aren't special. If you make a rule such as, it's alright to deny people their freedoms, then the same rule applies to you. It's like saying that you should be free to kill other people but they shouldn't be free to kill you. It's not even something that merits debate.

You still haven't answered the question.

[NghtRppr]

If someone is living in a libertarian society (thus being forced to abide by libertarian ideals and being affected by climate and forces created by libertarian society) and they are not libertarian, nor do they want to be libertarian, how is that ANY different than you living in this current society and claiming that  itis coercive and without voluntary choice simply because you don't agree with it?

So, you think you should be free to deny other people their freedoms? Then why should we respect your freedom? It's nonsensical. You aren't special. If you make a rule such as, it's alright to deny people their freedoms, then the same rule applies to you. It's like saying that you should be free to kill other people but they shouldn't be free to kill you. It's not even something that merits debate.

You still haven't answered the question.

What was the question again?

[AyeYo]

Without evidence, what is left? Your word? A gut feeling? Even if we had a god's-eye-view of history, not every parcel of land that was once stolen currently has a living heir that it could or should be returned to. In those cases, it can be considered abandoned property and the current owner does have a legitimate claim to it as having homesteaded it. Even worse, since we don't have a god's-eye-view of history, it's irresponsible to overturn who knows how many legitimate property titles because of some vague notion of injustice that can't even be proven to have occurred.

"I hear Republicans and Libertarians and so forth talking about property rights, but they stop talking about property rights as soon as the subject of American Indians comes up, because they know fully well, perhaps not in a fully articulated, conscious form, but they know fully well that the basis for the very system of endeavor and enterprise and profitability to which they are committed and devoted accrues on the basis of theft of the resources of someone else. They are in possession of stolen property. They know it. They all know it. It's a dishonest endeavor from day one."
-Ward Churchill

[AyeYo]

If someone is living in a libertarian society (thus being forced to abide by libertarian ideals and being affected by climate and forces created by libertarian society) and they are not libertarian, nor do they want to be libertarian, how is that ANY different than you living in this current society and claiming that  itis coercive and without voluntary choice simply because you don't agree with it?

So, you think you should be free to deny other people their freedoms? Then why should we respect your freedom? It's nonsensical. You aren't special. If you make a rule such as, it's alright to deny people their freedoms, then the same rule applies to you. It's like saying that you should be free to kill other people but they shouldn't be free to kill you. It's not even something that merits debate.

You still haven't answered the question.

What was the question again?

It's quoted right in the post.

[Anonymous]

Without evidence, what is left? Your word? A gut feeling? Even if we had a god's-eye-view of history, not every parcel of land that was once stolen currently has a living heir that it could or should be returned to. In those cases, it can be considered abandoned property and the current owner does have a legitimate claim to it as having homesteaded it. Even worse, since we don't have a god's-eye-view of history, it's irresponsible to overturn who knows how many legitimate property titles because of some vague notion of injustice that can't even be proven to have occurred.

"I hear Republicans and Libertarians and so forth talking about property rights, but they stop talking about property rights as soon as the subject of American Indians comes up, because they know fully well, perhaps not in a fully articulated, conscious form, but they know fully well that the basis for the very system of endeavor and enterprise and profitability to which they are committed and devoted accrues on the basis of theft of the resources of someone else. They are in possession of stolen property. They know it. They all know it. It's a dishonest endeavor from day one."
-Ward Churchill

So, if a child is born due to a man's pillage of rape and murder, he should not deserve to live freely?

[MoonShadow]

"I hear Republicans and Libertarians and so forth talking about property rights, but they stop talking about property rights as soon as the subject of American Indians comes up, because they know fully well, perhaps not in a fully articulated, conscious form, but they know fully well that the basis for the very system of endeavor and enterprise and profitability to which they are committed and devoted accrues on the basis of theft of the resources of someone else. They are in possession of stolen property. They know it. They all know it. It's a dishonest endeavor from day one."
-Ward Churchill

Very few of the American Indian tribes made any claim towards owning the land.  For the most part, the tribes West of the Missippi River were nomadic; and did not have a coherent concept of property ownership at all.  Tribes East of the Missippi, however, generally did.  In particular, the five tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribe) that made up the Cherokee nation; who owned all of Ohio and much of the territories that now make up surrounding states.  I'm directly decendent from Cherokee stock, and I can prove it.  Are you trying to say that I should have a claim to the state of Ohio?  I reject that concept.  I've never owned it, and as far as I can tell, none of my ancestors were swindled out of anything.  Prejudice of the early white settlers aside, my ancestors chose to move of their own accord.  Probably, in part, because of their own prejudices.

[NghtRppr]

"I hear Republicans and Libertarians and so forth talking about property rights, but they stop talking about property rights as soon as the subject of American Indians comes up, because they know fully well, perhaps not in a fully articulated, conscious form, but they know fully well that the basis for the very system of endeavor and enterprise and profitability to which they are committed and devoted accrues on the basis of theft of the resources of someone else. They are in possession of stolen property. They know it. They all know it. It's a dishonest endeavor from day one."
-Ward Churchill

I already covered that. Native Americans were just as likely to steal land as anyone else. I hope you really don't believe for a minute that not a single drop of blood was spilled over land by Native Americans. However, I'm all for returning stolen land if there is any evidence that there was once a rightful owner with a heir that's still living, otherwise, it's a moot point. Can you prove that anyone living owns this land? No? Alright then, let's move on.

If someone is living in a libertarian society (thus being forced to abide by libertarian ideals and being affected by climate and forces created by libertarian society) and they are not libertarian, nor do they want to be libertarian, how is that ANY different than you living in this current society and claiming that  itis coercive and without voluntary choice simply because you don't agree with it?

So, you think you should be free to deny other people their freedoms? Then why should we respect your freedom? It's nonsensical. You aren't special. If you make a rule such as, it's alright to deny people their freedoms, then the same rule applies to you. It's like saying that you should be free to kill other people but they shouldn't be free to kill you. It's not even something that merits debate.

You still haven't answered the question.

What was the question again?

It's quoted right in the post.

Oh but I did answer your question. I guess you weren't satisfied with my answer so I'll try again. How is forcing others to live under a Libertarian society different from being forced to live under any other society? The answer is, Libertarians don't violate your rights. If you want to form a hippie commune then go for it. But, when you try to take my property through taxes or arrest me because I don't empty my pockets, I'm well within my rights to defend myself. You, however, don't have the right to take my property. That's how it's different. All other societies are based on violations of rights but a Libertarian society is not. Are you satisfied now?

[Capitan]

http://absurdresults.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/obama-stop-the-rise-of-the-machines/

...is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers . . . . If you see it when you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller.

This reminds me of time when people were against lightbulbs because it would put candle workers out of business. I'm sorry you would prefer unskilled production over skilled technicians building our new tomorrow. However, I cannot empathize with your will to destroy wealth creation by making less efficient businesses in the name of putting more people to work in practically useless jobs. You don't like humanity, you don't like meeting needs, you just like putting numbers on paper.

I cannot believe any rational man would nearly advocate the dissolution of technology and wealth in the name of just pure numbers employment. It sickens me.

That blogger misinterpretted Obama's statement, and it looks like the posters here are running with that because they've already decided they don't like Obama. Obama isn't saying that the advancement of tech is bad, he's basically just pointing out the dislocation that technological advancement creates. Technology does create unemployment, because jobs that people used to do are made redundant due to efficiencies and automation. In theory this is not a problem because those jobs are offset by new ones (creating the machines and automation, new markets that open up).

The problem with this though, is that people don't simply reeducate themselves for the most part, at least not very easily. People who've lost their jobs due to outsourcing and automation only knew how to do what they were doing before. But now their skillsets are not needed. It can take over a decade for a work force to realign with the skills that are in demand. This is a well known economic phenomena, and it's existence is not up for debate. That is what Obama is referring to when he says structural issues – that there are a ton of people who's skills are no longer in demand. That is an "issue" from the standpoint that having unemployed citizens is a public problem.

Thank you. I'm sure you will all continue to hate on Obama and call him a retard without any real basis though.

[benjamindees]

It's pretty obvious that Obama doesn't understand the first thing about the economy.  He is making the problems worse.  He bailed out the failed, crony capitalists and destroyed jobs at the thousands of small businesses that could have picked up the pieces.  He is engaging in massive wealth redistribution in order to prop up investors in McMansions and strip malls.  He is continuing the retarded neo-liberal zero-tariff policy of free trade that enables outsourcing.  Worse than that, he's allowed the Fed to give away half a trillion dollars to foreign banks on the off chance that it will eventually make it's way back to the US economy in order to stimulate jobs.  He doesn't understand why, instead, energy and commodity prices are rising and the US is being drained of capital.

And, frankly, you're a retard too for giving the guy a pass.  It's been over two years and he's a total failure.  Bigger than Bush, even.  And I for one wouldn't even have thought that possible.

[Capitan]

It's pretty obvious that Obama doesn't understand the first thing about the economy.  He is making the problems worse.  He bailed out the failed, crony capitalists and destroyed jobs at the thousands of small businesses that could have picked up the pieces.  He is engaging in massive wealth redistribution in order to prop up investors in McMansions and strip malls.  He is continuing the retarded neo-liberal zero-tariff policy of free trade that enables outsourcing.  Worse than that, he's allowed the Fed to give away half a trillion dollars to foreign banks on the off chance that it will eventually make it's way back to the US economy in order to stimulate jobs.  He doesn't understand why, instead, energy and commodity prices are rising and the US is being drained of capital.

And, frankly, you're a retard too for giving the guy a pass.  It's been over two years and he's a total failure.  Bigger than Bush, even.  And I for one wouldn't even have thought that possible.

I'm not sure if that was directed at me. But if so that was totally irrelevant because I didn't say anything to support any of Obama's actions regarding any of what you just mentioned. I simply explained that the OP and the blogger he quoted had misinterpreted the Obama quote. Nothing more, nothing less. If it wasn't directed at me then ignore this post.

I don't believe the banks should have been bailed out. But I also believe the only political figure who would have even entertained the notion of NOT bailing them out would have been Ron Paul. Anyone else, even GOP and Tea Partiers who like to decry bank bailouts, would have bailed them out at the time. 

[lemonginger]

It's pretty obvious that Obama doesn't understand the first thing about the economy.  He is making the problems worse.  He bailed out the failed, crony capitalists and destroyed jobs at the thousands of small businesses that could have picked up the pieces.  He is engaging in massive wealth redistribution in order to prop up investors in McMansions and strip malls.  He is continuing the retarded neo-liberal zero-tariff policy of free trade that enables outsourcing.  Worse than that, he's allowed the Fed to give away half a trillion dollars to foreign banks on the off chance that it will eventually make it's way back to the US economy in order to stimulate jobs.  He doesn't understand why, instead, energy and commodity prices are rising and the US is being drained of capital.

I don't think it really has anything to do with understanding or not understanding, being smart or not, etc. Both political parties are bought, paid for and brought to by the military-prison-industrial complex, and wall street/corporations. You may get different shades of good cop/bad cop. You may get one party that tends to reward Big Oil and another that tends to reward Big Banks. But neither of the parties are going to do anything once in power to shake up the power structure that got them there. Look how quick Obama sold progressives out. Look how quick the Tea Party freshman candidates have by and large turned their back on their rhetoric to practice business as usual. Anyone that thinks change can come to the US through the ballot box hasn't been paying attention.

[AyeYo]

Oh but I did answer your question. I guess you weren't satisfied with my answer so I'll try again. How is forcing others to live under a Libertarian society different from being forced to live under any other society? The answer is, Libertarians don't violate your rights. If you want to form a hippie commune then go for it. But, when you try to take my property through taxes or arrest me because I don't empty my pockets, I'm well within my rights to defend myself. You, however, don't have the right to take my property. That's how it's different. All other societies are based on violations of rights but a Libertarian society is not. Are you satisfied now?

That's completely untrue.  I'm being forced under threat of violence to conform to a society whose rules I do not agree with and whose "coercive" market forces (your definition, not the real one) affect my daily life even though I do not agree with the policies that created them - just like you living in our current society.

[Anonymous]

Oh but I did answer your question. I guess you weren't satisfied with my answer so I'll try again. How is forcing others to live under a Libertarian society different from being forced to live under any other society? The answer is, Libertarians don't violate your rights. If you want to form a hippie commune then go for it. But, when you try to take my property through taxes or arrest me because I don't empty my pockets, I'm well within my rights to defend myself. You, however, don't have the right to take my property. That's how it's different. All other societies are based on violations of rights but a Libertarian society is not. Are you satisfied now?

That's completely untrue.  I'm being forced under threat of violence to conform to a society whose rules I do not agree with and whose "coercive" market forces (your definition, not the real one) affect my daily life even though I do not agree with the policies that created them - just like you living in our current society.

A policy of no theft creates horrible policies that disturb your daily life?

[MoonShadow]

That's completely untrue.  I'm being forced under threat of violence to conform to a society whose rules I do not agree with and whose "coercive" market forces (your definition, not the real one) affect my daily life even though I do not agree with the policies that created them - just like you living in our current society.

Care to present an actual example of this?