Let's consider that one some more.
Frame #3, what you are missing is that it removes any incentive to better yourself. You'll get the same results if you put in effort or don't
And all the frames--you think stealing is justice? Why are they going to put on a ball game if they're not paid to do so?
Wow. Just wow.
I am continually amazed at just how far you will contort yourself to justify a status quo that inordinately favors you, a white heterosexual male with blonde hair and I’m assuming blue eyes. I am assuming you are also an only child.
You see kids stealing. I see an illustration for the differences in privilege, equality, equity and justice. Apparently for you, justice means stealing, and the only value to anything is limiting its access, no matter who is hurt.
You assume the baseball game is being performed for pay. Apparently you never engaged in team sports, either.
Earlier you accused Loren of being racist because he was against racial discrimination; now you're accusing him of being racist because he's in favor of property rights, Ms. "I respect Loren almost always"? If that's how you talk to people you respect, how do you talk to people you
don't respect?
Which completely fails to address the equity issue.
And note that I'm not the only one who recognized that your "justice" frame doesn't work.
I definitely know that you are not the only person completely at home with his white male straight cis blonde haired blue eyed privilege who has zero intention of relaxing his death grip on that privilege.
Although, tbh, the cis, straight blonde and blue eyed part is not required for that death hold on white or male privilege.
You knew, of course, that Loren was talking about me when he said he's not the only one. Are you talking about me too when you say you know Loren's not the only one? Are you accusing me of racism because I don't think tearing down a fence somebody put up on his property is "Justice"?
Once upon a time left-wing ideologues tried to sell abolishing property rights by claiming economic theory proved capitalism was exploitative, but then economists realized the Labor Theory of Value was metaphysical drivel. So then left-wing ideologues tried to sell abolishing property rights by telling the common people it would be good for them because property only benefits the rich, but then they tried it over and over, and the common people always got a police state and usually a famine out of it. So now left-wing ideologues are trying to sell abolishing property rights by claiming everyone who disagrees with them is a racist. Unless the trend in leftists' arguments' intellectual sophistication reverses, their current iteration will have to be the last.
First of all, I did not accuse Loren of being racist.
Oh, come off it! You said he has a "death grip" on white male privilege!
I do not think he is egalitarian and I think that he, just like me and you, is sometimes blind to his own foibles.
No doubt. And you keep implying racism is one of those foibles even though he keeps not saying anything racist.
Secondly, I’m not certain why you ( or Loren, if he did so) saw that illustration as being about race. I did not.
Say what?!? Of course the illustration wasn't about race! Nobody said it was! The illustration was about leftists' idiotic notions as to what qualifies as equity and justice. I critiqued those notions, and then Loren critiqued those notions, and then you accused him of contorting himself to justify a death hold on white privilege. This was a straight-up dispute over economics and moral philosophy, right up until you decided to make it about your racial ad hominem. That's on you, and that's on every left-winger who ever helped train you to pull that particular eternally recurring switcheroo.
I saw it as being about removing unnecessary barriers so that everyone has equal access to all the good things in life.
Yes, exactly -- it was about how left-wingers are economic creationists who moronically believe barriers excluding some people from equal access to all the good things in life are the reason not everyone has access to the good things in life, because they systematically do not understand how excluding some people from equal access contributes to causing all the good things in life
to come into existence in the first place, and because they systematically
refuse to educate themselves about what the causes are and why they work, because they have faith that all the good things in life come into existence without any mechanism causing it to happen, exactly like a Christian fundamentalist who has faith that all the species of life came into existence without any mechanism causing it to happen.
The fence you call it "justice" to tear down is the fence that keeps the baseball field available for baseball. So I'll ask again: why would there still be a baseball game going on there in the absence of any "systemic barrier" preventing every random person who thinks he has a better use for the land from accessing it equally however he pleases and making baseball games infeasible?
Loren thought the illustration was about stealing. I think that says a lot about his world view and mine. You of course are entitled to your own
Yes, Loren has weird ideas about so-called "intellectual property". Apparently he thinks a photon that comes from the sun and bounces off a baseball player automatically becomes the property of the baseball league because it's carrying away information about their game, so the kids watching over the fence instead of buying tickets are stealing the league's intellectual property. He thinks this, as near as I can tell, because circa 1789 the Anglosphere's legal profession was mentally abducted by aliens -- the Revolution led to a whole lot of memes from the Francosphere contaminating British and American culture; one of these was the view that copyright is a natural property right, as opposed to the statutory contractual right Anglo law treated it as. Our lawyers even adopted the aliens' name for it, "propriété intellectuelle". Then the new way of thinking leaked out from lawyers to the general public. The conflict between these views, and the gradual victory of France over England in the subsequent two hundred year long culture war, is the underlying reason copyright duration went up from seven years to its current seven years short of forever. But yes, as you say, I of course am entitled to my own world view. The way I see it those photons stop being league property the nanosecond they leave league airspace, and if the league wanted to keep information about its games secret from the prying eyes of non-ticket-buying kids then the league should have thought of that when it decided to cheap out and build a fence low enough for somebody to watch the game over. This is a point Loren and I have argued before and I doubt he can ever be made to see reason.
But the point of all this exposition is that whether baseball viewing is the sort of thing that can be owned, and whether the kids are stealing, are
immaterial to the larger issue, which is that the notions of equity and justice and barriers to equal access to all the good things in life, as they are presented in your cartoon, are profoundly childish. Whether it's copyright or some other barrier, whether it's an actual in-your-face fence or only a polite velvet rope or even just a no-trespassing sign backed up by a potential phone call to the sheriff, those are trivial details. The point is equity and justice do not require removal of barriers to equal access. Equity and justice
cannot exist without barriers to equal access.
