“Claiming you own property is theft” (Anarcho-Communism)
“Taking property is theft, but acceptable for the Greater Good” (Various consequentialists)
Unprincipled stances on taxation:
“You CAN own property but taking it isn’t theft because of a Social Contract that you never agreed to.” (Unprincipled capitalists, e.g. most modern ideologies)
“Claiming you own property is theft, but if you use the car that Comrade Iosef drives, the police will get you even though it isn’t Comrade Iosef’s car” (Unprincipled communists, i.e: “communists.”)
Surely you can’t define theft without a concept of property, thus you can’t define property in terms of or in opposition to theft.
If you accept a consequentialist position on taxation then the debate is over:
“People would prefer to hang on to things, but there are reasons why we have to take things away from them, for the greater good”.
In practice most of the social contract viewpoint comes back to this anyway, as people wouldn’t defend a social contract if they thought it gave bad outcomes.
“The claim that I am not allowed to drive this car due to metaphysical constraints is a claim that belongs to the category of claims that I will punish according to a legal code that is written beneath the char[5] ‘theft’ “
Incidentally, initializing a fixed-buffer non-w charstring is treason.
(Also there is a real difference between “I am taking this from you because somebody else needs it” and “I am taking this from you, as you have agreed to, so don’t welsh on that agreement.” In tumblr parlance, one of these is gaslighting.)
Citizenship is gaslighting.
The Police is Mobsters.
Following you, @shieldfoss, was the right decision.
There’s a reason for it:
The parallels between libertarian and feminist insights are striking. “The state is male in the feminist sense,” MacKinnon argues, in that “the law sees and treats women the way men see and treat women” (MacKinnon 1989, Chapter 8 ¶ 11). The libertarian completion of this thought is that the state sees and treats everybody—though not in equal degree—the way men see and treat women. The ideal of a woman’s willing surrender to a benevolent male protector both feeds and is fed by the ideal of the citizenry’s willing surrender to a benevolent governmental protector. “We are not among wild beasts; from whom, then, does woman need protection? From her protectors,” Ezra Heywood remarked (McElroy 1991, p. 227); in the same way, libertarians have often described the state as an entity that protects people primarily from harms caused or exacerbated by the state in the first place. Just as, under patriarchy, forced sex is not recognized as real or fully serious rape unless the perpetrator is a stranger rather than one’s husband or boyfriend, so, under statism, governmental coercion is not recognized as real or fully serious tyranny unless it happens under a non-democratic government, a “dictatorship.” The marriage vow, as a rape license, has its parallel in the electoral ballot, as a tyranny license. Those who seek to withhold consent from their country’s governmental apparatus altogether get asked the same question that battered women get asked: “If you don’t like it, why don’t you leave?” — the man’s rightful jurisdiction over the home, and the state’s over the country, being taken for granted. It’s always the woman, not the abusive man, who needs to vacate the home (to go where?); it’s likewise the citizen, not the abusive state, that needs to vacate the territory (to go where?).
Despite these parallels, however, many libertarians — libertarian feminists definitely included — seems surprisingly unsympathetic to most of what feminists have to say. (…)
Libertarians are often unimpressed by feminist worries about social norms that disable anything a woman says from counting as declining consent to sexual access, but they are indignant at theories of tacit or hypothetical consent that disable anything a citizen says from counting as declining consent to governmental authority.1 Libertarians often conclude that gender roles must not be oppressive since many women accept them; but they do not analogously treat the fact that most citizens accept the legitimacy of governmental compulsion as a reason to question its oppressive character; on the contrary, they see their task as one of consciousness-raising and demystification, or, in the Marxian phrase, plucking the flowers from the chains to expose their character as chains.
When radical feminists say that male supremacy rests in large part on the fact of rape—as when Susan Brownmiller characterizes rape as “a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (Against Our Will, p. 15)—libertarians often dismiss this on the grounds that not all men are literal rapists and not all women are literally raped. But when their own Ludwig von Mises says that “government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action,” that it rests “in the last resort” on “the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen,” and that its “essential feature” is “the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning” [HA VI.27.2], libertarians applaud this as a welcome demystification of the state. Libertarians rightly recognize that legally enacted violence is the means by which all rulers keep all citizens in a state of fear, even though not all government functionaries personally beat, kill, or imprison anybody, and even though not all citizens are beaten, killed, or imprisoned; the same interpretive charity towards the radical feminist analysis of rape is not too much to ask.
this asker has ALL the hallmarks of a trans girl who hasn’t realised she’s a girl and you decide to tell her she has no worth. cis women are fucking unbelievable.
this is so obviously a trans girl who doesn’t know she’s a girl. it reads like a girl who’s lost and doesn’t have the words to describe what she’s feeling. and she’s reaching out (do you know how hard that is?) to a woman for guidance coz she’s obviously struggling with it, as in, it’s not within her realm of understanding, and it’s OBVIOUS. what the fuck is wrong with cis women
Honestly, I’m not sure that this is a struggling trans woman. Like it could be, but it also comes off to me like a guy complaining about how he feels guilty for being a man and expecting a woman to coddle to him. From that stand point I get why OP, who I consider a friend btw, would respond that way. Though it is very true that this person could be trans.
what is with the idea that there are secret hypothetical trans girls everywhere every time some cis dude whines about misogyny existing (heck we don’t even know if the guy there is cis)
sorry but it’s just not reasonable or possible to interact with every cis dude in a way that keeps in mind that they might-secretly-be-a-trans-girl even though they’ve never made any indication of that and are actively being harmful and demanding coddling from women
Well said my friend. Well said. <3
Trans women are women, we are not men. Why the flying fuck would we give a shit about a bunch of dudes who think they deserve a pat on the back for basic decency? We’re desperately trying to NOT be perceived as men. Are you people for real?
“Why the flying fuck would we give a shit about a bunch of dudes who think they deserve a pat on the back for basic decency? We’re desperately trying to NOT be perceived as men
“
(Figure 1: the tumblr trans community)
I support and want to protect all fellow AMAB people, cis or trans or whatever, whenever they struggle and are hurt due to their gender and the way it’s treated. No exceptions. I even stand for the trans people who horrify me, like those above, because this is the awful selfish and short-sighted mentality that can be beaten into anyone by oppression and alienation. I am no angel myself, I know. But this hurts me, this hurts my friends, it might very well push some vulnerable people over the edge.
Y’all are saying vile and oppressive things, but I think you can be better. You ought to reevaluate your positions.
“I support and want to protect all fellow AMAB people, cis or trans or whatever, whenever they struggle and are hurt due to their gender and the way it’s treated.”
like do you realize how hideous that statement is what the fuck is wrong w/ this
I rest my case.
did you seriously tag this “misandry cw” and “not trans enough.” the asker isnt “trans enough” because theyre not fucking trans. your argument is fucking incoherent. this is incoherent nonsense. yes, a cis man feelin bad about misogyny isnt fuckin “trans enough” because he Isnt Fucking Trans. what the hell is wrong with you.
Yeah honestly this post is a mess. Like, he specifically identifies as a man throughout the entire post.
Let alone like people acting like “amab” is a good way of aggregating people. like that seems basically counter to the last forever of trans women’s activism.
Yeah when I first saw this, I thought, that seems likely to be an AMAB trans person who hasn’t figured it out yet. It would not surprise me in the least.
But it is unreasonable (and frankly disturbing) to expect women (cis or trans) to put up with every man’s entitled bullshit just on the off-chance that one of them might not *really* be a man. That’s… basically male entitlement to women all over again. And it’s not like this person being secretly trans would make this message in any way acceptable behavior.
If this person is trans, I really hope they figure it out and become less of an entitled ass. I know it helped me. In the meantime, lesbiancraft handled it perfectly and everyone else needs to leave her the fuck alone.
“Men have no inherent worth, that’s reserved for women.”
Consider: “Women have no inherent worth, that’s reserved for men.”
Reversed stupidity is not intelligence.
People have worth. Period. Full stop.
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
“… Sin is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”
“It’s a lot more complicated than that–”
“No it ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes-”
“But they start with thinking about people as things…”
The fact that the entire post sequence up to(and not including, to some extent) @multiheaded1793 actually happened is one of the things that fucking terrifies me about SJ. someone comes to you claiming to have depression symptoms and a lack of self-worth and asks if they do indeed have human worth and you say no, and the response is ‘maybe you do, but only if you’re a trans woman’ not ‘what the fuck we were fighting against people having their self worth revoked for facts about their gender’?! Seriously, is every damn movement doomed to metamorphose into their own version of ‘our enemies aren’t human’?
I suppose yes, unless the paladins of Everything Else keep a constant watchful vigil over everything.
I reject feminism as an ideology. It’s not just because I want no part of a movement that rejects the humanity of a self-identified male on the grounds that they are male, its because I think it’s important for me to tell feminist women that, to tell them that I think they’re wrong. (I’m assuming lesbiancraft is female). If there’s a type of feminism that is 100% onboard with males telling women they’re wrong, maybe I could get behind that, but it’d be a very odd type of feminism.
Hi, welcome to my steel feminism, we’re currently “only” properly controlling the meaning of “extreme” feminism in just one country (yes, that’s right, sometimes we “extremists” are better than the “moderates” because we apply our feminism _consistently_, even to men, instead of shying away from the conclusions our theory inevitably leads to), but we’re growing and actually quite influential under the surface.
It’s admittedly a common misconception that feminism is “female supremacy” but in actuality the community has, among other things, consistently expelled people who have tried to apply double standards in things like rape apologia, advocated for the abolition of double standards in military service (while it would be exaggerating to say nobody supports them, nobody is willing to say it out loud if they are because the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor or Actual Equality), literally cheered when services were established in Sweden to address the needs of men and other non-women who have been raped, acknowledged that according to the feminist definition of rape (based on consent, not penetration) the CDC’s latest statistics suggest around 45% of people who are raped nowadays are men and that this is a significant non-addressed humanitarian tragedy, utterly rejected moralistic approaches to sex work, etc.
The feminism you are talking of already exists, it’s not that odd, we just think “male” is more useful as an adjective, instead of a noun, that’s all, and if what you said is your true objection to [feminism as you currently understand it], then we would very gladly have you aboard because human worth knows no gender and neither does one’s gender act as the sole determinant of the correctness of one’s arguments.
