Why libertarianism FAILS.

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Why libertarianism FAILS.

 Quite simply, it ignores that everyone is part of a society and that they are responsible to eachother to make the society work.

 

The only libertarian utopia in the world right now is Somalia.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:So

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So anything that doesn't go with EXC's view isn't libertarian?

 

 

Someone's making poor use of the term - I'd like to know who it is. I look at EXC as more of a free-market anarchist.

My problem is that all of the people that I've met that say "Keep government out of X" follow it with "But don't make me pay more for the same level of service".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Seriously. No public police, military, libraries, roads, schools, health care, postal service, fire departments, etc.

That is not libertarianism. Are you talking about anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-capitalists want no government and private corporations controlling all services.

I am a libertarian, I have voted for libertarian candidates, I have joined a university libertarian club and I don't recognize the thing that some people here are describing as libertarianism. I'm really sure that I know what libertarianism is and I'm really sure that some people here are really confused as to what libertarians want. This seems to be a criticism of anarchy that incorrectly keeps using the term 'libertarian' rather than 'anarchist'.

No military, no roads, and no police? Sounds like anarchy to me. I refuse to recognize that kind of anarchy as libertarianism. Do I need to (again) define libertarianism? Are we clear about what libertarianism is? Do we get it that anarchy is something unrelated to wanting a relatively small government that affords a relatively high degree of personal and economic freedom?

 

What you propose is begging for the anarchy you claim you don't support. I don't understand how you can speak out of both directions. It is like saying "abolish the EPA", and then saying "I do not want pollution" while somehow expecting companies regulate their waste themselves. A small government means the big corporations will be your warlords.

 

I also didn't say that EXC claimed no military, roads, or police. He said he wanted them all privatized. Not public. Are you saying you are okay with the rest of the things listed being privately owned instead of public?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

jcgadfly wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So anything that doesn't go with EXC's view isn't libertarian?

 

 

Someone's making poor use of the term - I'd like to know who it is. I look at EXC as more of a free-market anarchist.

My problem is that all of the people that I've met that say "Keep government out of X" follow it with "But don't make me pay more for the same level of service".

 

I don't know if there has been poor use of the term.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty[2] and the minimization or even abolition of the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minarchist to openly anarchist.[1][5][6][7] ...The most commonly known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism[8]

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Is that

Jormungander wrote:
Is that implying a desire for no government at all (anarchy)?

No, it just implies that in the face of all the evidence you still stubbornly believe capitalism, by means of magic dust, will never threaten your personal liberty. What can I say, You must be pretty young, I guess.

Weak government equates to anarchy in a capitalist economy. So yes, you are implying that you want no government.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Jormungander

Eloise wrote:

Jormungander wrote:
Is that implying a desire for no government at all (anarchy)?

No, it just implies that in the face of all the evidence you still stubbornly believe capitalism, by means of magic dust, will never threaten your personal liberty. What can I say, You must be pretty young, I guess.

Weak government equates to anarchy in a capitalist economy. So yes, you are implying that you want no government.

 

If private militias lead to anarcy please explain Switzerland

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

 

Quote:

 

professional soldiers constitute only about 5 percent of the military personnel; all the rest are conscript citizens aged from 20 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps I should clarify my

Perhaps I should clarify my post by saying that the Swiss army is extremely outnumbered, by ctizens with guns, yet no anarchy.

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Jormungander wrote:
Is that implying a desire for no government at all (anarchy)?

No, it just implies that in the face of all the evidence you still stubbornly believe capitalism, by means of magic dust, will never threaten your personal liberty. What can I say, You must be pretty young, I guess.

Weak government equates to anarchy in a capitalist economy. So yes, you are implying that you want no government.

 

If private militias lead to anarcy please explain Switzerland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

Quote:

professional soldiers constitute only about 5 percent of the military personnel; all the rest are conscript citizens aged from 20 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years

Where did you draw that question from those statements?

 

It is also not a private entity, it is a militia of citizens who are led by the Chief of the Armed Forces, who reports to the government's Department of Defense. The closest thing to a military Switzerland has. It is basically the same military we have but instead of centralizing weaponry and bases they have everyone store it in their homes. Considering they have a long-standing policy of neutrality, one of the most socialist states in europe, and have been reducing the militia year after year (less than 134,000 active now), I don't really see what your point is.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Perhaps I should clarify my post by saying that the Swiss army is extremely outnumbered, by ctizens with guns, yet no anarchy.

 

The militia are led by them. They still have police also, in their socialist state.

 

The citizens are not professionals. I don't see your point still.

 

Are you trying to say Switzerland has a strong military (militia)?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The point was it runs

The point was it runs counter to the claim that given the oppertunity the people will overthrow the government.

 

I was pointing out that Switzerland has a relativly small army, and if the citizens decided for a regime change, the army would be fucked.

 

 

They CAN take over the government, yet they don't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Shouldn't

ClockCat wrote:

 

Shouldn't libertarian utopias be dominating that list? Not countries where the government "controls" public services?

 

 

So, only Solmalia, would be considered a "libertarian utopia"?

 

As implied in my first post, wouldn't North Korea be a "Socialist utopia" seeing as the government controls just about everything?

 

 

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the more Libertarian it is. The more government programs it has, the more socialist it is. So Solmalia would be considered Libertarian and North Korea considered Socialist.

 

I don't really see anything in Libertarianism that consitutes no government programs, or no government [which would be anarchism]

 

So pure anarchism [no government] and pure socialsm [government controls everything] don't work.

 

Once again Libertarianism is not anarchy.

 

 

 

 [edit]

 

The question in Libertarianism isn't "Do we need government?" it's "Do we need so much government?"

 

[/edit]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Eloise

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Eloise wrote:
Jormungander wrote:
Is that implying a desire for no government at all (anarchy)?
No, it just implies that in the face of all the evidence you still stubbornly believe capitalism, by means of magic dust, will never threaten your personal liberty. What can I say, You must be pretty young, I guess. Weak government equates to anarchy in a capitalist economy. So yes, you are implying that you want no government.
If private militias lead to anarcy please explain Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
Quote:
professional soldiers constitute only about 5 percent of the military personnel; all the rest are conscript citizens aged from 20 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years

Considering that Switzerland is Socialist, not Libertarian, you are the one who needs to explain it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That quote took all my

That quote took all my room.
English
Noun
socialism(uncountable)
1. Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-makingand public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.

Explain how NK fits this description.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The point was it runs counter to the claim that given the oppertunity the people will overthrow the government.

 

There was no such claim. Again you're strawmanning me Cap. that's twice this thread, what gives?

I'll assume it just an honest mistake and clarify for you: My claim is that a weak democratic state would be equal to a powerless democratic state under what is, effectively, a plutocracy. Plutocracies are notoriously oppressive and quickly can become autocratic regardless of what anyone intended them to be.

 

Cpt Pineapple wrote:

 

 

They CAN take over the government, yet they don't.

Probably because they have no reason to overturn their highly democratic socialist state. People living under highly democratic and socialist leaning rule generally don't seem to have any problem with it...

funny that...

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I see, some people in the

I see, some people in the thread have replaced their god delusion with a government delusion


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

aiia wrote:

I see, some people in the thread have replaced their god delusion with a government delusion

 

I agree. Libertarian magic dust is a sad thing to believe in when all evidence runs to the contrary.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yourself perhaps?

aiia wrote:

I see, some people in the thread have replaced their god delusion with a government delusion

Yourself perhaps?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The point was it runs counter to the claim that given the oppertunity the people will overthrow the government.

 

I was pointing out that Switzerland has a relativly small army, and if the citizens decided for a regime change, the army would be fucked.

 

 

They CAN take over the government, yet they don't.

 

Who made the claim that people will overthrow the government given an opportunity to do so? What would they gain from overthrowing the incredibly equal, high standard of living they have in their socialist state?

 

 

If they want a regime change they can vote for it. They don't need to use force. There isn't a large corporate power controlling government policy, nor is there an overly strong military and a weak government to be taken advantage of.

 

 

I still don't get what point you are trying to make. Switzerland is the complete opposite of a libertarian wonderland. In what world do you equate them?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Shouldn't libertarian utopias be dominating that list? Not countries where the government "controls" public services?

So, only Solmalia, would be considered a "libertarian utopia"?\cti

As implied in my first post, wouldn't North Korea be a "Socialist utopia" seeing as the government controls just about everything?

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the more Libertarian it is. The more government programs it has, the more socialist it is. So Solmalia would be considered Libertarian and North Korea considered Socialist.

I don't really see anything in Libertarianism that consitutes no government programs, or no government [which would be anarchism]

So pure anarchism [no government] and pure socialsm [government controls everything] don't work.

Once again Libertarianism is not anarchy.

 [edit]

The question in Libertarianism isn't "Do we need government?" it's "Do we need so much government?"

[/edit]

Your questions have been answered several times already. Somalia is the only country with no functioning government, that would appease all the libertarians that want the government to do NOTHING For them.

North Korea is not socialist. There is a high degree of inequality in that statist nation. How does the public own the public resources in their country? How do they vote out their dictator?

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the less libertarian it is. According to your own list. Unless you are trying to tell me that Switzerland, which you are championing as libertarian somehow, is a "free market paradise" with private ownership over public services.

The definition of libertarianism goes from minanarchist to anarchist.  Both lead to anarchy, directly or indirectly. This has already been discussed. Do try to keep up.

Did anyone claim that government needed to control everything? Socialism is not authoritarianism either by the way.

Once again libertarian obviously leads to anarchy. A small government will be pushed around. Public services need to be publicly owned, not handed over to private interest. The conflict of interest is too great, when someone has to choose on a daily basis between personal gain and public welfare.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I've never heard a good reason from a libertarian why the parts of the world with weak or nonexistent states are uniformly poor, disease-ridden, and violent.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Considering

Vastet wrote:
Considering that Switzerland is Socialist, not Libertarian, you are the one who needs to explain it.

 

I'm not the one claiming the socialism leads to anarchy or a deprived government.

 

 

 

Clockcat wrote:

If they want a regime change they can vote for it. They don't need to use force. There isn't a large corporate power controlling government policy, nor is there an overly strong military and a weak government to be taken advantage of.

So in other words as long as it's a democracy, then no anarchy? What in Libertarianism negates democracy?

 

 

Clockcat wrote:

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the less libertarian it is. According to your own list.

 

For fuck's sake, just because countries on those lists have socialist programs, doesn't mean they aren't Libertarian. Once again, pure Libertarianism and pure socialism don't work.

 

Socialism is state-ownership. Socialized health care would be the government running healthcare. That's all it is regardless of whether the government is a democracy or a dictatorship, so yeah, North Korea is a socialist state, and pretty close to pure considering that the government runs pretty much everything.

 

 

Once again, Libertarianism is NOT anarchy. We NEED government, the question is do we need so much?

 

 

And "weak government" Weak in what way? The government will still have a military/police under the Libertarianism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I've never

ClockCat wrote:

I've never heard a good reason from a libertarian why the parts of the world with weak or nonexistent states are uniformly poor, disease-ridden, and violent.

Disease-ridden poverty-stricken third world countries aren't the result of libertarianism. Aren't those states weak because their countries lack natural resources, infrastruture and a functioning economy so they can't have a large state? I don't think that they want to have a small government, they just can't afford better because their economies are barely functioning. I think you might be putting the cart before the horse here.

If your nation's per capita income as about $100 (Tanzania, Ethiopia, Mozambique), then you can not have a functioning state. That's true. It also isn't libertarianism's problem that it is true. And some of these nations are super poor, disease ridden and war torn and they have oppressive extremely non libertarian governments.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Considering that Switzerland is Socialist, not Libertarian, you are the one who needs to explain it.

I'm not the one claiming the socialism leads to anarchy or a deprived government. 

Clockcat wrote:

If they want a regime change they can vote for it. They don't need to use force. There isn't a large corporate power controlling government policy, nor is there an overly strong military and a weak government to be taken advantage of.

So in other words as long as it's a democracy, then no anarchy? What in Libertarianism negates democracy?

Clockcat wrote:

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the less libertarian it is. According to your own list.

For fuck's sake, just because countries on those lists have socialist programs, doesn't mean they aren't Libertarian. Once again, pure Libertarianism and pure socialism don't work.

Socialism is state-ownership. Socialized health care would be the government running healthcare. That's all it is regardless of whether the government is a democracy or a dictatorship, so yeah, North Korea is a socialist state, and pretty close to pure considering that the government runs pretty much everything.

Once again, Libertarianism is NOT anarchy. We NEED government, the question is do we need so much?

And "weak government" Weak in what way? The government will still have a military/police under the Libertarianism.

What ARE you claiming? Please, tell us. You can't seem to make up your mind.

Are you claiming that Switzerland is ran by libertarians?

The only thing I can seem to understand from your writing is that you don't comprehend what socialism is.  Pro tip: public or direct worker ownership. The government works for you.

Libertarianism IS minarchist to anarchist. Privatizing  and deregulating everything leads directly to this. Even if you decide that "the free market" doesn't work for military/police, it will simply change who orders them by who has the money to lean on people that have control over them. That is what happens when industry gets too powerful. People shouldn't be forced to choose between personal and public welfare over public goods. Look at Lieberman in the U.S., where the constituency of his state overwhelming supports the public option. He said he would support it, until the insurance industry put 3 million into his campaign. His wife works for Hill and Knowlton, advising pharmaceudical and health insurance lobbyists. When they are powerful enough they can buy what they want out of a weaker government. Our government in the U.S. is growing weaker and weaker, and is unable to provide adequately for most of it's citizens today. This has nothing to do with military power. This has to do with signing away of public rights to private companies, for profit.

 

If it is a private good, by all means it should be allowed to have a place, regulated, in a mixed economy. But this is not what libertarianism asks for. Libertarians want reduction of government, or abolishment of government. This includes regulation, and public services. Abolishment of public schools is one big easy example. It is a public service that is needed by society, and should not be limited to being a for-profit enterprise.

 

I am a social democrat, and a liberal. I believe capitalism and socialism are needed. However, they are NOT opposing forces as you seem to be thinking. This is why I did not bother responding to your thread this summer, because I didn't want to waste my time. Just because there is a public availability of something does not mean private industry is banned from it. 


There are thousands of ways to build a government. Libertarianism is designed on reducing or removing all of them. That is it's very ideology. It ends up leading to the free market through deregulation, so that is why that is so embraced along with it. 

 

You cannot guarantee personal freedoms without a government strong enough to protect them. Abandoning the public to the wolves of the free market for things necessary to society, is not something to praise. It does nothing but harm that society.

 

The opposite to libertarianism is authoritarianism. I am in the center of this spectrum in my beliefs. However, my beliefs have no influence on the problems with libertarianism that I have described in this thread.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:The fact of

ClockCat wrote:

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the less libertarian it is.

Libertarianism offers a lot of economic freedom by definition.

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
Socialism is state-ownership. Socialized health care would be the government running healthcare. That's all it is regardless of whether the government is a democracy or a dictatorship, so yeah, North Korea is a socialist state, and pretty close to pure considering that the government runs pretty much everything.

Hmmm, I thought it was defined as owned by the workers or the people, i.e. by everyone. It's true that, historically, the government almost always ends up managing all the resources, but still, one of the main points of socialism is that it, supposedly, is fair and doesn't allow too much power to belong to too few people. North Korea is the completely opposite of this ideal.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

butterbattle wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the less libertarian it is.

Libertarianism offers a lot of economic freedom by definition.

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
Socialism is state-ownership. Socialized health care would be the government running healthcare. That's all it is regardless of whether the government is a democracy or a dictatorship, so yeah, North Korea is a socialist state, and pretty close to pure considering that the government runs pretty much everything.

Hmmm, I thought it was defined as owned by the workers or the people, i.e. by everyone. It's true that, historically, the government almost always ends up managing all the resources, but still, one of the main points of socialism is that it, supposedly, is fair and doesn't allow too much power to belong to too few people. North Korea is the completely opposite of this ideal.

 

Libertarianism WISHES for economic freedom. That is the goal. However, in practice, according to Pineapple's list of countries, socialist states dominate that list.

 

What I was pointing out was that, if libertarianism (free market) gave economic freedom, shouldn't all of the top countries be far from the socialist states most of them are? Shouldn't the list be filled with countries with entirely deregulated industries?

 

The free market destroys itself. Eventually you end up with nothing but monopolies or oligopolies. This isn't rocket science.

 

I don't see how anyone could support this idea. Capitalism is fine, but not laissez-faire.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
Socialism is state-ownership. Socialized health care would be the government running healthcare. That's all it is regardless of whether the government is a democracy or a dictatorship, so yeah, North Korea is a socialist state, and pretty close to pure considering that the government runs pretty much everything.

Hmmm, I thought it was defined as owned by the workers or the people, i.e. by everyone. It's true that, historically, the government almost always ends up managing all the resources, but still, one of the main points of socialism is that it, supposedly, is fair and doesn't allow too much power to belong to too few people. North Korea is the completely opposite of this ideal.

 

 

That would be Communism, which is an extreme form of Socialism, just as anarchy is an extreme form of Libertarian. That is not to imply in any way that libertarianism entail anarchy and socialism entails Communism.

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I am a social

ClockCat wrote:

I am a social democrat, and a liberal. I believe capitalism and socialism are needed. However, they are NOT opposing forces as you seem to be thinking. This is why I did not bother responding to your thread this summer, because I didn't want to waste my time. Just because there is a public availability of something does not mean private industry is banned from it.

 

If you read the OP in that topic, I said that I support universal health care, but it should be opened to competition just like any other government program.

 

I can't start my own public transit company [from points to within the city, not something like Greyhound which is from city to city] because the government owns the public transit and stomps out competiition, which means they can charge whatever they want, run whatever routes they want and not have to worry about losing customers, because even if they did, tax dollars will subsidize them.

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I'm not the one claiming

"I'm not the one claiming the socialism leads to anarchy or a deprived government."

You attempted to use a socialist nation to defend the concept of libertarianism. Defend it or fail. Actually you already fail, because you can't defend your strawman of socialism, you just assert the same bullshit without looking at the definition. So this is to prevent you falling TWICE.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Rofl, make that three times,

Rofl, make that three times, since you've confused socialism with communism.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Rofl, make that

Vastet wrote:
Rofl, make that three times, since you've confused socialism with communism.

 

How many times was libertarianism confused with anarchism?

 

Communism is a form of Socialism, and Anarchy is a form of Libertarianism. Once again, that does not mean that socialism leads to communism or libertarianism leads to anarchy.

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Vastet

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Rofl, make that three times, since you've confused socialism with communism.

How many times was libertarianism confused with anarchism?

I don't know. Since you aren't paying attention, I'll point out I never confused it at all.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Communism is a form of Socialism

Your descriptions of both fall far short of the mark. For the THIRD time in A ROW, I direct you to the dictionary.

Communism (from communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

Socialismrefers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
the amount of labor

the amount of labor expended.

SO FOR THE LAST TIME, show how NK is the slightest bit socialist OR communist, because by definition, it is NEITHER!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:SO FOR THE LAST

Vastet wrote:
SO FOR THE LAST TIME, show how NK is the slightest bit socialist OR communist, because by definition, it is NEITHER!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production."

Sounds like NK to me. Some socialists want total state control of the economy. Like the socialists running NK.

"Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production)."

Seems like the communist countries are considered a form of socialism here.

"Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private ownership on society. The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society."

Another communist socialist.

"Many termed the Soviet Union "socialist", not least the Soviet Union itself, but also commonly in the USA, China, Eastern Europe, and many parts of the world where Communist Parties had gained a mass base. In addition, scholarly critics of the Soviet Union, such as economist Friedrich Hayek were commonly cited as critics of socialism."

More communist socialists. The states that called themselves "communist" were socialist states. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has a 100% centrally planned economy. You can't get any more socialist than that.

 

I thought that it was clear that centrally planned economies (like NK or the old USSR) were socialist. I thought that a centrally planned economy is the hight of socialism. Do Canadians use a definition of socialism that is contrary to the US definition?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
urgh, bad Jorm! bad

urgh, bad Jorm! bad wiki!

Dont make me pull a graph out my ass

 

I suppose Conservatives are now Fascists, and Fascist Conservatism exists as well!

 

....

 

wait

 

....

 

huh, no hits... well that was a bummer -_-

What Would Kharn Do?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:What in

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
What in Libertarianism negates democracy?

 

Weak representation.

 

Cpt Pineapple wrote:

Clockcat wrote:

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the less libertarian it is. According to your own list.

 

For fuck's sake, just because countries on those lists have socialist programs, doesn't mean they aren't Libertarian.

You're definitely on your own in here on believeing that Cap. Jormangunder and EXC do not agree with you that extensive socialism in the state is harmonious with libertarian captalism in the economy. You seem to be the sane one that recognises Switzerland as strong evidence flying in the face of that, good. But don't think they'll agree with you.

 


Cpt Pineapple wrote:

 

And "weak government" Weak in what way? The government will still have a military/police under the Libertarianism.

 

Just to be clear, I mean weak in democratic representation. Democracy requires, more or less, equal power distribution. For example take Hong Kong, a successful experiement in capitalism run economies - the public owns all the land, which gives the people strength over the corporations they house which they don't have to take in taxes, but even with that they have still expanded their state to cover gaps in representation.

A strong representative state is necessary where capitalism is allowed to run, Why? because capitalism generates power classes, not just freedoms as some libertarians would like us to believe.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:ClockCat

butterbattle wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

The fact of the matter is, the more economic freedom it has, the less libertarian it is.

Libertarianism offers a lot of economic freedom by definition.

Yeah.... offers... but delivers? Not so simple.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:So you mean you

Eloise wrote:

So you mean you need a protected zone that the richest man in town can't buy with legal tender?

So in other words, public land.

Right?

Yes. I believe if you business is going to use a lot of land, you should pay a user fee to the rest of society for this priveldge. Because if one makes the land private, then it is not available for use by others. So essentially you pay off everyone else to leave you alone on your land. But this discourages waistful use of the land and monopolization of the land.

But this is why I'm not in sync with most libertarians and conservatives that think owning land and doing with it as you please it their "right".

Eloise wrote:

Funny how you say war lords or "socialists" EXC. Is War-Lord the new word for "capitalists we here capitalists don't want to associate ourselves with"?  He's just a trader. Ok so he trades in blood, but that's what you can sell for a premium price where he's from.

Are capitalists putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay for things you don't want or need? How are they trading in blood? Are you talking about arms merchants?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:That

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
That would be Communism, which is an extreme form of Socialism, just as anarchy is an extreme form of Libertarian. That is not to imply in any way that libertarianism entail anarchy and socialism entails Communism. 

Okay. That sounds about right.

Jormungander wrote:
I thought that it was clear that centrally planned economies (like NK or the old USSR) were socialist. I thought that a centrally planned economy is the hight of socialism.
  

That's what I thought too.

Eloise wrote:
Yeah.... offers... but delivers? Not so simple.
 

*sigh* Yes, you're right.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Socialists inspired by the

"Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development"

Soviet Russia was neither communist nor socialist. You're allowing propoganda to define terms. By definition, NK is statist, and a dictatorship, which means it is incapable of being socialist or communist, both of which are PUBLIC ownership of all things, including the government. A dictatorship precludes the possibility of any form of socialism.

"Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production)."

Socialism is more than just an economic policy, it is a social one as well (I'd have thought the word alone would tip you off). If you take away half of something, it no longer fits the definition of the whole.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Socialism is

Vastet wrote:
Socialism is more than just an economic policy, it is a social one as well (I'd have thought the word alone would tip you off). If you take away half of something, it no longer fits the definition of the whole.

Socialism fails as well. Our biology is such that we live in competition with one another. We compete with one another for natural resources, food, shelter, mates and to propagate our genes. We all basically only care for ourselves. Socialist fail to recognize this fact or completely ignore this obvious reality. Sure their our strategies of cooperation humans can take. But socialists seem to think that humans can just ignore our biology and our reality and just take care of one another, when the reality is that we are still in competition.

Libertarianism fails because they believe people have rights to own or monopolize natural resources and have an unlimited right to breed. When someone puts up a No Trespassing" sign on their property", this restricts my liberty to use this land. When people have children they can't or won't take care of, this places a burden on everyone else's liberty. This is where traditional libertarianism and conservatism are wrong, you can't have liberties if they place restrictions and burdens on others.

That's why their needs to be a rational alternative to the traditional political philosophies of socialism, libertarianism and conservatism.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lies and strawmen, thanks

Lies and strawmen, thanks for your lack of contribution to the topic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Lies and

Vastet wrote:
Lies and strawmen, thanks for your lack of contribution to the topic.

OK then. Why don't you explain to us the socialist rational for unconditional entitlements?

Our biology and evolutionary history is such that we have been in continual competition since the beginning of life. How can a system work where people are required to take care of those they compete against be sustained? How can all this competition be ended just by passing a law against it?

You have to bury your head in the sand and pretend we live in a world where all this competition is not the case. This is the only way one could justify unconditional entitlements.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 

What libertarians in the wild may actually look like. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
This is uncalled forYou are

This is uncalled for

You are being antagonist
 

Read the rules

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

aiia wrote:

This is uncalled for

You are being antagonist
 

Read the rules

 

 

Apologies, you are correct. I have edited my post accordingly.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote: Do we

Jormungander wrote:

 Do we get it that anarchy is something unrelated to wanting a relatively small government that affords a relatively high degree of personal and economic freedom?

That's the strawman they always trot out: If you're not for big government, you're not for good services but you're for anarchy.

Everyone wants good services, the question is do you leave it to a government bureaucracy or does the individual hire the services for themselves. And do we have pay as you go for services or do we pay for everything by taxing high income earners and profitable businesses. This is what the debate needs to be about.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
OK let's talk about

OK let's talk about that.

Profitable businesses and high income earners don't pay their fair share of taxes - they pay their lawyers handsomely to keep that from happening or they stash money offshore (which really doesn't help the economy of the country they're in).

Why does their freedom have to sit on my back?

This is probably where you ask me why I don't hire my own high-powered tax attorney instead of answering my question.

Love to be proven wrong here.

As far as "pay as you go" - great idea unless someone prices essential services out of the range of average people. Then everything stops.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:OK let's talk

jcgadfly wrote:

OK let's talk about that.

Profitable businesses and high income earners don't pay their fair share of taxes - they pay their lawyers handsomely to keep that from happening or they stash money offshore (which really doesn't help the economy of the country they're in).

Why does their freedom have to sit on my back?

This is probably where you ask me why I don't hire my own high-powered tax attorney instead of answering my question.

Then you're just sitting on someone elses back and more blood from the economy gets stashed away in useless hoards. Solve everyone's problems with capitalistic pixie dust and there'll be noone left to sit on, this is why our economies are globalised. It was that... or ... heaven forbid.. give socialism a spin at the wheel. Globalisation is supposed to be the solution to the gaping flaw in the capitalist solution, make the base bigger and it will last longer while you gnaw it away to less than bone.  Yeah, good luck with that capitalism, is all I can say.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:jcgadfly

Eloise wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

OK let's talk about that.

Profitable businesses and high income earners don't pay their fair share of taxes - they pay their lawyers handsomely to keep that from happening or they stash money offshore (which really doesn't help the economy of the country they're in).

Why does their freedom have to sit on my back?

This is probably where you ask me why I don't hire my own high-powered tax attorney instead of answering my question.

Then you're just sitting on someone elses back and more blood from the economy gets stashed away in useless hoards. Solve everyone's problems with capitalistic pixie dust and there'll be noone left to sit on, this is why our economies are globalised. It was that... or ... heaven forbid.. give socialism a spin at the wheel. Globalisation is supposed to be the solution to the gaping flaw in the capitalist solution, make the base bigger and it will last longer while you gnaw it away to less than bone.  Yeah, good luck with that capitalism, is all I can say.

Sitting on someone else's back? Not with my income - I work in education.

Personally I think that Obama's mistake is trying to save capitalism aka reanimating a corpse.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:OK let's talk

jcgadfly wrote:

OK let's talk about that.

Profitable businesses and high income earners don't pay their fair share of taxes - they pay their lawyers handsomely to keep that from happening or they stash money offshore (which really doesn't help the economy of the country they're in).

Some rich don't pay enough for the services they use and the privileges they use. But others pay way more in taxes than they get back. If you try to enforce higher taxes, they'll take more money oversees, shut their business down and lay workers off.

Suppose I go into the business of energy delivery. I could get the privilege to drill for oil and then make high profits because this is a limited resource. I can take advantage of market forces that make it an expensive commodity. I can pollute and produce a product that dumps a lot of pollution into the environment.

Or I could study the technology of making renewable fuels, spend time and my own money learning and developing renewable energy that does not pollute. I could use very little natural resource to develop this business.

I could be successful either way. But the tax code is such that it just taxes one for the merely having having income. So it penalizes innovation, education, hard work. So the tax code needs to be changed to how much natural resources did you use, not how much was your profit.

The problem is if you make your money from intellectual property, you can easily move to another country to escape high income taxes. If you make money by exploiting limited natural resources, you continue to make more profit and buy up more resources. This is the problem with capitalism as it is practiced now, it allow people to monopolize natural resources. But socialism is not the answer because it rewards failure and penalizes success and hard work.

The way to view government is the sovereign authority of a piece of land. It grants the privilege to use the land are resources for the benefit of all.

jcgadfly wrote:

Why does their freedom have to sit on my back?

The mere fact that someone makes a lot of money does not impact your freedom. If capitalists exist in a far away galaxy, how does their high income affect you? The problem is you have to share a small planet with capitalist that can buy up a lot of the planet with their money. So this is what must be regulated and taxed for the benefit of all.

jcgadfly wrote:

This is probably where you ask me why I don't hire my own high-powered tax attorney instead of answering my question.

No. I agree with Shakespeare.

jcgadfly wrote:

As far as "pay as you go" - great idea unless someone prices essential services out of the range of average people. Then everything stops.

According to Eloise and a lot of leftists, the poor don't use any natural resources only the rich. So I don't know why the leftists object so much to this idea.

Actually everyone has to eat, use shelter, clothes, etc.. to live which requires natural resouces. So either the poor need to pay for what they use or they should loose their right to breed.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:As

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As far as "pay as you go" - great idea unless someone prices essential services out of the range of average people. Then everything stops.

According to Eloise and a lot of leftists, the poor don't use any natural resources only the rich. So I don't know why the leftists object so much to this idea.

LMAO, I guess you didn't understand the maths then. I said the relative use of resources by the poor in comparison to the wealthy was so low that it approached zero on the scale. Basically, the consumption of resources by the wealthy can be orders of magnitude larger than that of the working class, so that a single unit of wealthy consumption dwarfs an entire sum of impoverished consumption.

EXC wrote:

Actually everyone has to eat, use shelter, clothes, etc.. to live which requires natural resouces. So either the poor need to pay for what they use or they should loose their right to breed.

Well, aren't you just a fluffy ball of humanity, then. Wow.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com