Libertarian?

dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Libertarian?

Would luv some feedback from folks on this.

Libertarianism seems like an ideal system--in a perfect world. However, given that most people--I would argue at least a majority--out there are not, nor are they anything close, the "great unwashed" need rules & regulations to keep them, the idiots, in check.

From what I understand, this system says people should be able to self-govern. Period. End of Story. Well, again, in a perfect world.

Thoughts?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
If all people need rulers

If all people need rulers then government creates an ungoverned class of governors. No, democracy is not sufficient to remove this.

If some people need rulers and others don't, it is wrong to force those who don't to obey rulers. You should be allowed to withdraw or secede from the system.

Assuming most people are idiots implicitly includes yourself as an likely idiot. You, as a potential idiot, should not be allowed to make decisions for me, such as "You need to have a ruler." This idiocy also applies to politicians and bureaucrats.

I'm tired of the "utopian" objection to libertarianism, I've heard it a million times and I swear people never try to rebut their ideas on their own before throwing them out. My usual response is "Hey, why not check and see if this isn't already a problem in the current system before you point out a 'problem' in libertarianism." 'Cause guess what? It is.

Now you defend nonlibertarianism against Libertarian arguements.

Morality: If it is wrong for one person to kill another except in self-defense, it is wrong for one person to murder another even if one calls himself a "Soldier" or "Police Officer", except in self-defense. If it is wrong for one person to enslave another, it is wrong for one person to enslave another even if one person calls himself "Your Representative in Government". If it is wrong for one person to steal from another, it is wrong for one person to steal from another even if one person call himself an "IRS Agent." If not, all I need to do to kill you, enslave you, and steal your property is declare myself a "Soldier", "Representative", or "IRS agent" depending on which I'm doing, and suddenly it all becomes okay. Do you disagree?

Economic Efficiency: Free markets (not to be confused with open markets) are more efficient than government. Price controls such as minimum wages, economic regulations such as product quality mandates, and other things distort the market and reduce overall welfare by wasting human effort. Do you disagree?

Power Corrupts: If any people are inherently inclined to abuse power, those people are attracted by government and enter government to abuse power. Democracy will not make good men run for office nor will it elect them. Government is a magnet for the corrupt and a means for the corrupt to hurt others. Do you disagree?

Lack of Knowledge: No bureaucrat knows what I want or the means for me to achieve it. Therefore any rules they set will necessarily only be detrimental to my achievement of my goals. I know what I want, and you don't. If you think you do, then you are saying you know something that you obviously do not. Do you disagree?

Fecal Alchemy: Everything government touches turns to shit, everything it does, it makes things worse. The Prohibition did not remove alcohol. FCC regulations only make profanity more popular. Nothing the government has ever done has been efficient, inexpensive, and high quality. Do you disagree?

Deflection of Taxation: Money collected through involuntary taxation is by definition money which had better uses in the eyes of the owner than what it had to be forced to do. This inherently decreases the utility of that money towards meeting demand and increasing our standard of living. Do you disagree?

Law is Slavery: If I lobby the Legislature for a law saying all people must say the Pledge at 8 AM every weekday, you are now my slave, as I have compelled you into involuntary servitude, the very definition of slavery. This does not change if I say "Keep financial records for tax purposes", "File a 1040", or "Register for the Draft". Do you disagree?

Government is Destruction: All government can do is destroy. Government is guns, the threat to use guns, and all the bureaucracy built upon that threat. Guns in the hands of governments can only destroy. Armies do not produce, they destroy. Bureaucrats do not produce, they waste. The only productive things government can do are things the market would do without government in the first place. Because destruction is detrimental to human happiness, we should reduce destruction as much as possible, including government. Do you disagree?

 

I find government to be a hopelessly "perfect world" idea. It requires smart voters, uncorrupt politicians, omniscient bureaucrats, and other things which never seem to appear, in order to function properly. But that's okay. Maybe it'll work someday when we finally get that perfect world where we don't need it anymore.


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
The core libertarian

The core libertarian mentality is idealistic and unworkable in the real world. But the concept is attractive. I try to think of myself as one. Then someone's dog shits on my lawn and I realize.


 


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I love how nonlibertarian

I love how nonlibertarian objections to libertarianism are so nonspecific. It absolves them of any responsibility to actually cite facts and give reasons, because it's just easier to say

"It's just unworkable"

"It doesn't work in practice"

"It's utopian"

"You need perfect people"

"It's like communism"


Now do you have any real objections to it or are you content to smile and shake your head knowing you're right but unwilling to prove it?

Show me what you've got or gtfo and stfu.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I honestly FAIL to see how

I honestly FAIL to see how a doctrine of basic personal responsibility is unworkable. If that is "unworkable", we are indeed in a VERY poor way as a species. We are capable of so much more than we give ourselves credit for.

Personally, I think if civilaztion requires the handholding and stifling inherent in the systems that we currently employ that we are not nearly as civilized as we like to think we are. Freedom entails responsibility and consequences - it's past time we face such things head on. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi, you're gonna blow a

Zhwazi, you're gonna blow a gasket pal. Slow down. Breath. Good.

I'm glad you "love how nonlibertarian objections to libertarianism are so nonspecific". But your initial post does nothing to establish the workability of libertarianism. You basically make it clear that you have a big problem with the feds and you're not getting what you want. That's rough and I'm sorry, but how does this bolster libertarianism?

The federal government pisses me off as well and I have a tendency to vote for libertarian candidates, but I won't call myself a fullfledged libertarian because I really don't have enough faith in my fellow man. Do you really believe opportunist corporations give 2 shits about you and your family? You really think they should be allowed to self regulate? Greed will always float to the top, whether it's in a civic setting or an absolute free market. It just doesn't go away. Some degree of oversite is a necessary evil. Of course I think we could use a lot less than we've got now.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't say a

I wouldn't say a Libertarian government is like Communism, I don't know who made that claim.  It's closest to an artistocracy.  There would be no governmental systems in place to protect the people from corrupt merchants, the police would be controlled by the government and the government would be controlled by the corporations and rich who need a police state to protect their interests.  Poverty would be high since there would be no labor/wage protection, social security or welfare.  Health would be poor with the eradication of institutions like the FDA and EPA.  Illiteracy would increase since education would be for those who could afford it.  Costs of goods would increase since transport is completely privatized when public roadways are given to private interests.

Esstentially Libertarianism calls for a return to an America during the Industrial revolution.  Sweat shops, blacklists, corporate run towns, corporate run paramilitary groups that are used to kill labor organizers and protesters, and so on. Perhaps Libertarians are just ignorant of history or they think if they pray hard enough corporations will stop being greedy.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
zhwazi: First, I am here to

zhwazi:

First, I am here to learn. I understand the nature of these forums is attack mode, but I would like to learn. Seriously.

I have listened to Neil Boortz for years, read a bit on this subject, but I am no economist. So here I am...

Yes, I would consider myself in with "the idiot crowd," just on the upper fray. Most of the regulars here are above that: smart, bright, repsonsible, rational. I argue that most people arent. I want solutions. What do we do? You want examples? Here:

Tons of money is spent on preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, littering, etc. What's the end result? Not good. Especially in my community. These two issues show fairly dismal results. Personal responsibility? Right.

Solutions? I'm all ears.

Thanks! 

 

 

 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Edger wrote: Zhwazi,

Edger wrote:

Zhwazi, you're gonna blow a gasket pal. Slow down. Breath. Good.

I am breathing. 

Quote:
I'm glad you "love how nonlibertarian objections to libertarianism are so nonspecific". But your initial post does nothing to establish the workability of libertarianism.

Okay, lemme put it like this. Every flaw that people accuse Libertarianism of having is a flaw in the present system, if it is a flaw at all. Can you think of any flaws in libertarianism which government is not subject to? 

Quote:
You basically make it clear that you have a big problem with the feds and you're not getting what you want. That's rough and I'm sorry, but how does this bolster libertarianism?

I said government is wrong, ineffective, inefficient, and destructive. Those are reasons why libertarianism makes sense. 

Quote:
The federal government pisses me off as well and I have a tendency to vote for libertarian candidates, but I won't call myself a fullfledged libertarian because I really don't have enough faith in my fellow man.

Neither do I. But I don't have enough faith in men called cops and politicians. This is a problem with the current system that is not exclusive to libertarianism. 

Quote:
Do you really believe opportunist corporations give 2 shits about you and your family?

First of all "Corporations" are a government-created legal entity, a way to subsidize the rich by giving them limited liability for their actions. Under a libertarian system, there would be no corporations, only businesses. Second, no, I don't think they care, and I don't expect them to. It's my job to care. I don't care about them, they don't care about me, except that I'm a potential customer and they're offering something I want. 

Quote:
You really think they should be allowed to self regulate?

Yes. 

Quote:
Greed will always float to the top, whether it's in a civic setting or an absolute free market. It just doesn't go away.

Greed is not bad. Do you mean corruption?

The worst an abusive business can do is rip off it's customers or workers, who will just go elsewhere and drive the business into the ground. The worst a government can do has yet to be realized. 

Quote:
Some degree of oversite is a necessary evil.

Not necessary, but you're right on the "evil" part.

Quote:
Of course I think we could use a lot less than we've got now.

Not good enough for me. Less is better, but none is best.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: I wouldn't

D-cubed wrote:

I wouldn't say a Libertarian government is like Communism, I don't know who made that claim. It's closest to an artistocracy.

No it isn't. Aristocracy is a result of government. 

Quote:
There would be no governmental systems in place to protect the people from corrupt merchants,

Yes there would. 

Quote:
the police would be controlled by the government

Wrong. 

Quote:
and the government would be controlled by the corporations and rich who need a police state to protect their interests.

Wrong. 

Quote:
Poverty would be high since there would be no labor/wage protection, social security or welfare.

Humanity didn't evolve because we had wage protection, social security, and welfare. All of these are actually destructive. Minimum wages keep the poorest and unskilled workers unemployed, social security is a regressive tax and pays nowhere near the market interest rate and doesn't compensate for inflation even, and welfare just creates dependancy which leads to helplessness which is worse than poverty because once you have learned helplessness it's much harder to unlearn it. 

Quote:
Health would be poor with the eradication of institutions like the FDA and EPA.

Wrong. The FDA's billion-dollar testing procedures would be cut out of the mix, allowing pharmecutical companies other than an oligarchy to compete and bring the cost down and the quality up. The EPA is a joke. If you want to protect the environment, buy it and sue polluters for damages. In a free market, you could actually do that, because the government wouldn't be protecting polluters from lawsuits as it does now. 

Quote:
Illiteracy would increase since education would be for those who could afford it.

Education is not exclusive to schools. I learned jack shit in school. The Discovery Channel had me five years ahead of my science classes for fuck's sake. Education is a lifelong process, it's impossible to prevent people from educating themselves by leaving them alone. People are not naturally helpless and inable to act if not force fed inputs. At least not after the age of 5, which is when they go into school to be indoctorinated. 

Quote:
Costs of goods would increase since transport is completely privatized when public roadways are given to private interests.

Airlines, railways, ships, these are all privately owned. Guess what? We still use them to transport things and it's not that expensive. Costs of goods would decrease when you consider the income taxes and sales taxes being removed, the increased competition from small companies once the big companies stopped getting subsidies, and the natural progress of technological innovation.

Quote:
Esstentially Libertarianism calls for a return to an America during the Industrial revolution.

No, Libertarianism, at least the most radical sense, calls for the abolition of the public sector. 

Quote:
Sweat shops, blacklists, corporate run towns, corporate run paramilitary groups that are used to kill labor organizers and protesters, and so on.

Sweat shops might be hell, but nobody would work in one for any reasonable wages, so they won't be a problem. Blacklisting isn't a bad thing. Corporations would not exist, much less be able to run towns unless they own all the land under a city. Corporate run paramilitary groups couldn't hold up against paramilitary labor organizers and protesters, and labor unions are destructive anyways. 

Quote:
Perhaps Libertarians are just ignorant of history or they think if they pray hard enough corporations will stop being greedy.

1. Not ignorant. We interpret history from a different perspective.

2. We don't pray.

3. For the last time, no corporations. No state = no corporations. Look at the incorporating process and tell me how you'd do it without a government.

4. Greed is not bad. 


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
dassercha

dassercha wrote:

zhwazi:

First, I am here to learn. I understand the nature of these forums is attack mode, but I would like to learn. Seriously.

Then ask before making accusations. Way to get off on the wrong foot.

Quote:
I have listened to Neil Boortz for years

Neal Boortz isn't a libertarian, he's a neolibertarian. He's not represenative of libertarianism. Listen to Free Talk Live to hear Libertarianism.

Quote:
Yes, I would consider myself in with "the idiot crowd," just on the upper fray. Most of the regulars here are above that: smart, bright, repsonsible, rational. I argue that most people arent.

Then they will elect idiots, and the idiots will no longer just be a majority, they'll be writing idiot laws fighting idiot wars and imposing idiot taxes. Is this an improvement in conditions? 

Quote:
I want solutions. What do we do? You want examples? Here:

Tons of money is spent on preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, littering, etc. What's the end result? Not good. Especially in my community. These two issues show fairly dismal results. Personal responsibility? Right.

Solutions? I'm all ears.

Thanks!

 

Stop paying taxes and get everyone else to do the same. Then the government can't waste any more money on it because it won't have any more money.

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is not the community's job. Preventing STDs is not the community's job. They are the jobs of the people directy involved. In this case, the two having sex.

Government is a terrible landlord. The worst one in history. If land gets littered, the government has nothing but annoyed constituents. If privately owned land gets littered, the landowner has to either clean it up or his land value is going to take a nosedive. If the government sold all the land to regular people, they'd figure out their own way to deal with the littering problem.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: I wouldn't

D-cubed wrote:

I wouldn't say a Libertarian government is like Communism, I don't know who made that claim.  It's closest to an artistocracy.  There would be no governmental systems in place to protect the people from corrupt merchants, the police would be controlled by the government and the government would be controlled by the corporations and rich who need a police state to protect their interests.  Poverty would be high since there would be no labor/wage protection, social security or welfare.  Health would be poor with the eradication of institutions like the FDA and EPA.  Illiteracy would increase since education would be for those who could afford it.  Costs of goods would increase since transport is completely privatized when public roadways are given to private interests.

Esstentially Libertarianism calls for a return to an America during the Industrial revolution.  Sweat shops, blacklists, corporate run towns, corporate run paramilitary groups that are used to kill labor organizers and protesters, and so on. Perhaps Libertarians are just ignorant of history or they think if they pray hard enough corporations will stop being greedy.

 

Holy unfounded, unsupported naked assertions Batman!

 When you have something constructive to bring to the conversation, be sure to let us all know!

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
How is the statement that

How is the statement that with libertarianism the buisnesses would not simply take the place of government, only much more restrictive of people's freedoms, not a naked assertion? I have seen no proof offered for this. 

There is a comment above where someone mentions that with libertarianism one could buy the environment and sue people for damages. Doesn't it also stand to reason then that one could buy the environment and decide it was their private property? Doesn't that seem like something that would be bad for society?

Personally, I'm not completely against it. I would actually do very well, possibly even raising my own army of the poor who's persons I would purchase for a fair market rate. Cool. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: No it isn't.

Zhwazi wrote:
No it isn't. Aristocracy is a result of government.

Right, I should have said feudalism 

Quote:
Yes there would.

Thanks for the elaborate rebuttal 

Quote:
Wrong.

Thanks for that elaborate rebuttal 

Quote:
Wrong.

Thanks for that elaborate rebuttal 

Quote:
Humanity didn't evolve because we had wage protection, social security, and welfare. All of these are actually destructive. Minimum wages keep the poorest and unskilled workers unemployed, social security is a regressive tax and pays nowhere near the market interest rate and doesn't compensate for inflation even, and welfare just creates dependancy which leads to helplessness which is worse than poverty because once you have learned helplessness it's much harder to unlearn it.

Our standard of living increased with higher wages brought about by increased union membership thereby creating a middle class.  Social Security was the one plan that helped to eliminate vast amounts of poverty among the elderly and welfare served as a buffer for destitution.  Minimum wage doesn't keep people unemployed, that's something you just pulled out of your ass.  In areas where the minimum wage has been increased unemployment actually went down.  Kansas has the lowest minimum wage but ranks 25th in unemployment, Hawaii ranks lowest in unemployment but has a higher minimum wage.  So you claim isn't supported by the data.  1% of the U.S. budget is targeted for welfare for the poor, 12% is targeted for the middle and upper class.  So by your argument the wealthy are more dependent and helpless than the poor.  How do you figure that?  The disabled are often on welfare, your solution is for themselves to pick themselves up and get a job.  If they could they wouldn't be disabled.  Is there a lot of good paying jobs for people with no arms?  No, but Libertarism suggests they should just die in a gutter along with the elderly who are to old to work, or the young but since you advocate eliminating child labor laws we can put these five year olds to work in the mines.

When Michigan ended a $240 million dollar program to provide assistance to 83,000 people only 8% found work, 33% became homeless.  If 5% ended up in prison that would have eliminated the money saved by ended the program.  You do have a magical solution where people can just go out and get a job.  In your Libertarian system where health care is available only for those who can afford it and there is less access to education everyone should be able to get a job like a dentist or pilot and all the unskilled manufacturing jobs will magically return back to America, once wages go down to 50 cents an hour.  It's a pipe dream you have that has failed in the past.

Quote:
Wrong. The FDA's billion-dollar testing procedures would be cut out of the mix, allowing pharmecutical companies other than an oligarchy to compete and bring the cost down and the quality up. The EPA is a joke. If you want to protect the environment, buy it and sue polluters for damages. In a free market, you could actually do that, because the government wouldn't be protecting polluters from lawsuits as it does now.

So your solution is to make humans buy untested drugs so they can be the guinea pigs.  When they die or are crippled from side effects they can get an attorney.  But they can't afford an attorney because they don't have a job because they were fired for their disability and there is no public assistance.  Brilliant.  In the meantime the billion dollar corporations can hire numerous lawyers and tie up the courts for years making only those who are rich enough to sue able to sue.  Then again the corporations control the government so they can merely pass laws allowing what they do to be legal like what was done with the fuel additive MTBE.

So your solution to environmental problems is that polluters just won't pollute out of fear of being sued?  It's called an operational cost.  Again, if a person has millions of dollars they can conduct the research typing a corporation to groundwater pollution, hire attorneys and scientists and fight for years in the courts and hopefully get a positive result before getting severe brain damage from mercury or lead pollution.  Again you show you don't have a grasp on the issues. 

Quote:
Education is not exclusive to schools. I learned jack shit in school. The Discovery Channel had me five years ahead of my science classes for fuck's sake. Education is a lifelong process, it's impossible to prevent people from educating themselves by leaving them alone. People are not naturally helpless and inable to act if not force fed inputs. At least not after the age of 5, which is when they go into school to be indoctorinated.

Yes, I'll agree with the fact you haven't learned much.  So you are saying you are the product of edutainment learning your facts right alongside true ghost stories and the power of prayer shows.  Keep on dreaming that someone will hire you for a good paying job with such fabulous education credentials.  Have fun working in fast food the rest of your life. 

Quote:
Airlines, railways, ships, these are all privately owned. Guess what? We still use them to transport things and it's not that expensive. Costs of goods would decrease when you consider the income taxes and sales taxes being removed, the increased competition from small companies once the big companies stopped getting subsidies, and the natural progress of technological innovation.

Nope, they are all subsidized.  You failed to grasp the issue.  The public roads and highways would also be privatized.  Had you learned something in school you would have realized that railroads restricted who could ship materials on their rails putting many out of business.  Trucking came along to compete with the restrictions by the rail companies since a free highway system provided no restrictions but your system would eliminate that.  How are the costs of goods supposed to be reduced by eliminating subsidies?  Smaller companies couldn't afford the overhead costs of fuel.  When gas was just $3 a gallon rates for transport had to be raised, even more so if they have to pay to go on the highways.

   

Quote:
Sweat shops might be hell, but nobody would work in one for any reasonable wages, so they won't be a problem. Blacklisting isn't a bad thing. Corporations would not exist, much less be able to run towns unless they own all the land under a city. Corporate run paramilitary groups couldn't hold up against paramilitary labor organizers and protesters, and labor unions are destructive anyways.

 Oh good, I thought sweat shops still existed, apparently you cleared that up.  There were corporate run towns, so clearly you didn't pay attention in history class.  And in addition you failed to learn about the labor strikes where companies would hire their own armed forces like the Pinkertons to beat, kill or harass labor organizers.  When the Pinkertons weren't enough the National Guard was called in to defeat protesters.  Try getting a bit more up on American history before pretending that the last couple hundred years didn't exist.

Quote:
1. Not ignorant. We interpret history from a different perspective.

2. We don't pray.

3. For the last time, no corporations. No state = no corporations. Look at the incorporating process and tell me how you'd do it without a government.

4. Greed is not bad.

Like Christian revisionism and the holocaust deniers, I got it. But your utopian ideals require more faith than anything, not to mention a huge denial of history.  Corporations are formed to limit liability so they just won't magically disappear because you pray hard enough.  Greed may not be bad, just selfish and irresponsible.  I suggest paying attention in school next time.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
 

Holy unfounded, unsupported naked assertions Batman!

When you have something constructive to bring to the conversation, be sure to let us all know!

That's pretty much the typical response I get from Libertarians.  When you guys actually present something plausible perhaps you'll get more than 1% of the vote in an election.  Actually you guys do pretty well for dog catcher but your own ideology would demand that he quit his job. 


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: How is the

Vessel wrote:

How is the statement that with libertarianism the buisnesses would not simply take the place of government, only much more restrictive of people's freedoms, not a naked assertion? I have seen no proof offered for this.

Nor have you offered any evidence to the contrary.

Businesses do not have geographic monopolies on force like governments do. They cannot force you do to anything. There are no police to enforce laws (security guards to protect people, but no police to enforce the law) in Libertarianism. Any group attempting to do so would be seen as a mafia and promptly shot at, whether by people acting in self-defense or by security guards and protection agencies.

This means that businesses are reliant upon your voluntary decisions to buy their products or sell them your time and energy. Pissing off customers is very bad business. Any business that tried to do that would be either starved of income or run out of town. Setting up involuntary oppresive systems would get them shot at. Because nobody wants to get shot at, they won't do things like that.

Quote:
There is a comment above where someone mentions that with libertarianism one could buy the environment and sue people for damages. Doesn't it also stand to reason then that one could buy the environment and decide it was their private property? Doesn't that seem like something that would be bad for society?

One person can only own so much of the environment. You can own a thousand acres of forest, for example. If you decide to burn it down, the environment has 1000 fewer acres of forest, but the damage you can do is limited to 1000 acres, and if you tried to sell the land, then you've SERIOUSLY wasted a lot of your effort to buy that land because now it's worth a lot less. Abusing the environment would be financially stupid under Libertarianism, and nothing seems to motivate people quite like the fear of losing money.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: One person

Zhwazi wrote:
One person can only own so much of the environment. You can own a thousand acres of forest, for example. If you decide to burn it down, the environment has 1000 fewer acres of forest, but the damage you can do is limited to 1000 acres, and if you tried to sell the land, then you've SERIOUSLY wasted a lot of your effort to buy that land because now it's worth a lot less. Abusing the environment would be financially stupid under Libertarianism, and nothing seems to motivate people quite like the fear of losing money.

I was no aware that pollution respected borders. Let's look at your scenario is a real world example.  Alaska has laws limiting where loggers can clear cut.  Since logging promotes erosion and reduces the amount of shade there has to be a forest buffer line near streams where salmon spawn.  Without that government imposed border the water would get too hot or filled with silt and the salmon would reproduce thereby eliminating jobs for salmon fishers.  However you say this is a bad idea and loggers should be able to cut whereever they want because it only affects their property.

Let's look at mercury emissions.  The most common way to spread mercury is from coal power plants.  As you aren't aware air pollution doesn't limit itself to certain boundries so I can live miles away on my own property but still get contaminated.  Prevention would be cheaper and thankfully we have the EPA to conduct the science and efforce anti-pollution measures which have been successful in reducing the amount of mercury pollution (although you say otherwise but I doubt you can actually explain that).

The belief that companies would destroy their environment is not shared by mining companies that employ strip mining. Environmental damage like the Buffalo Creek disaster that resulted in an avalanche of toxic sludge that destroyed real estate and wiped out aquatic life 36 miles downstream.  People suffered from health problems the rest of their lives and had to move out of their residences.  The government installed saftey measures but as is with what currently goes on the companies have a large economic influence and discourage any enforcement of these regulations resulting in numerous other disasters that damage the environment.

So pollution doesn't just happen to be polite and stay where it's told. 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Vessel

Zhwazi wrote:
Vessel wrote:

How is the statement that with libertarianism the buisnesses would not simply take the place of government, only much more restrictive of people's freedoms, not a naked assertion? I have seen no proof offered for this.

Nor have you offered any evidence to the contrary.

Never said I intended to. I was simply pointing out that if you are going to say those who oppose your political ideology are making unfounded assertions then perhaps you should support your assertions. 

Zhwazi wrote:
Businesses do not have geographic monopolies on force like governments do. They cannot force you do to anything. There are no police to enforce laws (security guards to protect people, but no police to enforce the law) in Libertarianism. Any group attempting to do so would be seen as a mafia and promptly shot at, whether by people acting in self-defense or by security guards and protection agencies.

What if the group that desired to force their will was a buisness  that owned all gun production and did not allow sale of their guns but to those who supported their buisness' goals? A nice merger between the protection agency and the gun production buisness sure would make for one powerful buisness

Not to mention, who are you counting on to do this 'shooting at'? It seems that throughout history that individuals have been more than willing to be oppressed rather than risk their lives to fight for their own freedom. it is only when people are organized into militias or armies that they become willing to risk their lives for ideologies.Once you have militias and armies you are going to need regulatory bodies for them.

Zhwazi wrote:
This means that businesses are reliant upon your voluntary decisions to buy their products or sell them your time and energy. Pissing off customers is very bad business. Any business that tried to do that would be either starved of income or run out of town. Setting up involuntary oppresive systems would get them shot at. Because nobody wants to get shot at, they won't do things like that.

People get shot at as a result of actions that they are completely aware will get them shot at all the time. Where the hell do you live? And very often it is in the name of greed. Strictly to get the business that others are getting. Go to any ghetto street corner and you can see this type of behavior being lived out daily. The illegal drug buisness is a beautiful example of a completely unregulated market. 

 

Zhwazi wrote:
One person can only own so much of the environment. You can own a thousand acres of forest, for example. If you decide to burn it down, the environment has 1000 fewer acres of forest, but the damage you can do is limited to 1000 acres, and if you tried to sell the land, then you've SERIOUSLY wasted a lot of your effort to buy that land because now it's worth a lot less. Abusing the environment would be financially stupid under Libertarianism, and nothing seems to motivate people quite like the fear of losing money.

Who makes this law that youy can only own so much of the environment and why would you restrict my personal freedom to own the entire environment if others were of their own freewill willing to sell it to me? That is a restriction upon my business. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Your belief that there is

Your belief that there is nothing to protect people from corrupt merchants is incorrect. Government is not necessary for this protection. The market naturally favors honest business dealings because nobody goes back and deals with a crooked merchant more than once unless forced to.

The police would not be controlled by the government because there would be no government.

Because there would be no government, it couldn't be hijacked by corporate interests. And waitaminute, isn't that exactly what we have right now anyways?

Quote:
Our standard of living increased with higher wages brought about by increased union membership thereby creating a middle class.

Higher wages does not mean higher standard of living. Money is not wealth. Stuff is. If you are producing less stuff, then the undersupply raises prices anyways. Getting higher wages does not make you rich. If it did, why not set the minimum wage at $300 per hour? That would be wonderful for the poor, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Social Security was the one plan that helped to eliminate vast amounts of poverty among the elderly

By stealing from peter to pay paul. Sorry, if I can't steal from peter to pay paul, nor can government.

Quote:
and welfare served as a buffer for destitution.

You didn't rebut my point that it creates dependancy and helplessness.

Quote:
Minimum wage doesn't keep people unemployed, that's something you just pulled out of your ass.

If someone is doing work for me for $5 an hour which earns me $6 per hour for a net profit of $1 per hour, I will hire them.

If you raise the minimum wage to $6.15, I'm now losing 15 cents per hour that I have him employed. Sorry, that bitch is fired. I'm not going to lose money just to give someone a job.

Quote:
In areas where the minimum wage has been increased unemployment actually went down. Kansas has the lowest minimum wage but ranks 25th in unemployment, Hawaii ranks lowest in unemployment but has a higher minimum wage. So you claim isn't supported by the data.

That's because there's other things affecting the unemployment rate than minimum wages. In Kansas there's fucking nothing happening. Therefore low demand for jobs. In Hawaii stuff is going on constantly. Therefore high demand for jobs which overcomes the offset from minimum wage.

Quote:
1% of the U.S. budget is targeted for welfare for the poor, 12% is targeted for the middle and upper class.

By what measurement? Anything which subsidizes big business or bureaucrats is for the middle and upper class, while only money directly recieved by the poor in the form of handouts is given to the poor?

Quote:
So by your argument the wealthy are more dependent and helpless than the poor. How do you figure that?

Not dependant or helpless, just taking advantage of something that's in front of them. The upper and middle class wouldn't suddenly collapse if you took away whatever subsidy you have them, the lower class would.

Quote:
The disabled are often on welfare, your solution is for themselves to pick themselves up and get a job. If they could they wouldn't be disabled.

They can. If you have a functioning brain or a functioning body, you can do something productive.

Quote:
Is there a lot of good paying jobs for people with no arms?

Steven Hawking seems to be doing well for himself as a quadrapalegic.

Quote:
No, but Libertarism suggests they should just die in a gutter along with the elderly who are to old to work, or the young but since you advocate eliminating child labor laws we can put these five year olds to work in the mines.

No, not at all. We just suggest that maybe, just fucking maybe, it's not right to rob Peter to pay Paul. The ends do not and cannot justify the means. Besides, it's not like voluntary charity is nonexistant. If you let people take home more of their own money, you'll actually get more people giving more money.

Quote:
When Michigan ended a $240 million dollar program to provide assistance to 83,000 people only 8% found work, 33% became homeless. If 5% ended up in prison that would have eliminated the money saved by ended the program.

Which is as much an arguement for the ineffectiveness of government at solving problems as it is for the difficulty of finding productive labor in Michigan.

Quote:
You do have a magical solution where people can just go out and get a job.

People don't need jobs, they need money. You do not need a job to make money. A job is just an employment contract

Quote:
In your Libertarian system where health care is available only for those who can afford it

Strawman. If nothing else you'd be getting it on the "Okay here's the care but you owe us such and such dollars over the next 24 months", just like how people buy cars. It's not like everyone that can't pay full price in cash for a car doesn't own one.

Quote:
and there is less access to education

Did you even READ my response to your last post?

Quote:
everyone should be able to get a job like a dentist or pilot

No.

Quote:
and all the unskilled manufacturing jobs will magically return back to America, once wages go down to 50 cents an hour.

Would you work for 50 cents per hour? Me neither. Most people wouldn't. Therefore wages won't go down to 50 cents per hour. STFU.

Quote:
It's a pipe dream you have that has failed in the past.

I don't like your attitude. Stop being a self-righteous prick or we're done here.

Quote:
So your solution is to make humans buy untested drugs so they can be the guinea pigs.

No. I don't want to "make" people do anything. That's the thing. Don't assume I do. Libertarianism is about not making anyone do anything, it's about leaving them alone. You're projecting, knock it off.

Quote:
When they die or are crippled from side effects they can get an attorney.

They do that today, why not under Libertarianism? Which begs the question, why are people still doing it today if the government has solved these problems for us?

Quote:
But they can't afford an attorney because they don't have a job because they were fired for their disability and there is no public assistance. Brilliant.

That's right, because in Libertarianism the only form of payment available to anybody is up-front-full-cash-payment in gold bullion.

Except not.

Quote:
In the meantime the billion dollar corporations

ARG WHAT THE HELL. NO CORPORATIONS. I JUST EXPLAINED THIS THREE TIMES AN HOUR AGO.

Quote:
can hire numerous lawyers and tie up the courts for years making only those who are rich enough to sue able to sue.

The courts won't be tied up like that if they're less bureaucratic, like they'd be without government.

Quote:
Then again the corporations

>.>

Quote:
control the government so they can merely pass laws allowing what they do to be legal like what was done with the fuel additive MTBE.

No, that's what they do now. Under libertarianism there is no government in the first place.

Quote:
So your solution to environmental problems is that polluters just won't pollute out of fear of being sued?

Yes. That's how it was until the Industrial Revolution when the government decided to prevent people from doing that.

Quote:
It's called an operational cost. Again, if a person has millions of dollars they can conduct the research typing a corporation to groundwater pollution, hire attorneys and scientists and fight for years in the courts and hopefully get a positive result before getting severe brain damage from mercury or lead pollution.

No corporations dammit. What the hell, seriously.

And no, it doesn't take that much. If you'd like me to do that to government I could descibe how bureaucratic the government solutions are, but I really don't have to do that because everybody already knows that the government is slow, unresponsive, and bureaucratic. How is the government magically able to determine who is polluting for so cheaply when nobody else is?

Quote:
Again you show you don't have a grasp on the issues.

You don't have any grasp of what I'm talking about whatsoever, so that's hardly a scathing insult.

Quote:
Yes, I'll agree with the fact you haven't learned much.

I said I didn't learn it in schools. Stop being an asstart.

Quote:
So you are saying you are the product of edutainment learning your facts right alongside true ghost stories and the power of prayer shows.

No. But thank darwin I'm not a product of the public schools, that would be far worse.

Quote:
Keep on dreaming that someone will hire you for a good paying job with such fabulous education credentials. Have fun working in fast food the rest of your life.

You don't need an employer to make a living.

Quote:
Nope, they are all subsidized.

But everything is subsidized these days. They subsidize tobacco and then tax it, for fuck's sake. It doesn't rebut the point that they are all privately owned.

Quote:
You failed to grasp the issue.

You failed to grasp Libertarianism.

Quote:
The public roads and highways would also be privatized.

Yes.

Quote:
Had you learned something in school you would have realized that railroads restricted who could ship materials on their rails putting many out of business.

I remember that. But there far more roads than railroads, it becomes impractical when you don't have a geographic monopoly.

Quote:
Trucking came along to compete with the restrictions by the rail companies since a free highway system provided no restrictions but your system would eliminate that.

The road did not need to be provided for free to supplant the railroads. And there would still be no restrictions on flight and boating.

Quote:
How are the costs of goods supposed to be reduced by eliminating subsidies?

By lowering taxes and letting people keep their own money.

Quote:
Smaller companies couldn't afford the overhead costs of fuel.

Gimme a fucking break. This is the weakest arguement yet. All companies have overhead and many of them cope with it. Fuel is not the expense which makes or breaks a company.

Quote:
When gas was just $3 a gallon rates for transport had to be raised, even more so if they have to pay to go on the highways.

What the hell? Gas taxes pay for the highways. Seriously weak arguement here.

Quote:
Oh good, I thought sweat shops still existed, apparently you cleared that up.

If the definition of sweatshop includes low wages, then yeah, they're pretty much gone from the US.

Quote:
There were corporate run towns, so clearly you didn't pay attention in history class.

There are no corporations in Libertarianism because corporations are a government creation.

Quote:
And in addition you failed to learn about the labor strikes where companies would hire their own armed forces like the Pinkertons to beat, kill or harass labor organizers.

AK-47s are inexpensive rifles. $300 or so. If you can't afford one, you have better things to do than organize labor unions.

Quote:
When the Pinkertons weren't enough the National Guard was called in to defeat protesters.

Therefore get rid of the government and the national guard and the Pinkertons wouldn't be enough.

Quote:
Try getting a bit more up on American history before pretending that the last couple hundred years didn't exist.

Try reading American history from the perspective of someone who doesn't assume the solution to all problems is government and you'll see why I don't have to.

Quote:
Like Christian revisionism and the holocaust deniers, I got it.

No, statism is more like the holocaust denial.

Quote:
But your utopian ideals require more faith than anything, not to mention a huge denial of history.

Your utopian world where the government is solving all our problems without simply replacing them requires a lot of faith as well.

Quote:
Corporations are formed to limit liability so they just won't magically disappear because you pray hard enough.

If governments disappear, corporations disappear. Big business wouldn't disappear, but corporations would.

Quote:
Greed may not be bad, just selfish and irresponsible. I suggest paying attention in school next time.

Selfish yes, but that's not bad, and it's not irresponsible.

I did pay attention in school. That didn't help me learn anything because they just kept telling me what I already knew.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: Would luv

dassercha wrote:
Would luv some feedback from folks on this. Libertarianism seems like an ideal system--in a perfect world. However, given that most people--I would argue at least a majority--out there are not, nor are they anything close, the "great unwashed" need rules & regulations to keep them, the idiots, in check. From what I understand, this system says people should be able to self-govern. Period. End of Story. Well, again, in a perfect world. Thoughts?

So most people are too stupid to rule themselves?
Quote:

... During the Dark Ages, for example, it was coloured by Christianity, being adapted to the needs of the Church hierarchy. The most useful "divinely revealed" dogma to the priestly elite was "original sin": the notion that human beings are basically depraved and incompetent creatures who need "direction from above," with priests as the conveniently necessary mediators between ordinary humans and "God." The idea that average people are basically stupid and thus incapable of governing themselves is a carry over from this doctrine, a relic of the Dark Ages.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: I was no

D-cubed wrote:
I was no aware that pollution respected borders.

If it doesn't, you sue.

Quote:
Let's look at your scenario is a real world example. Alaska has laws limiting where loggers can clear cut. Since logging promotes erosion and reduces the amount of shade there has to be a forest buffer line near streams where salmon spawn. Without that government imposed border the water would get too hot or filled with silt and the salmon would reproduce thereby eliminating jobs for salmon fishers. However you say this is a bad idea and loggers should be able to cut whereever they want because it only affects their property.

I didn't say it only affects their property. But you can do whatever you want on your own property until it hurts other people such that they can sue you. If the salmon fishers want the loggers to not chop log right by the rivers, they can offer money. Clearly the reward of salmon is higher valued than the inconvenience of not logging by the river, (otherwise the government mandate is uneconomic) so they can afford to do this and come out ahead.

Quote:
Let's look at mercury emissions. The most common way to spread mercury is from coal power plants. As you aren't aware air pollution doesn't limit itself to certain boundries so I can live miles away on my own property but still get contaminated. Prevention would be cheaper and thankfully we have the EPA to conduct the science and efforce anti-pollution measures which have been successful in reducing the amount of mercury pollution (although you say otherwise but I doubt you can actually explain that).

What makes a group of people calling themselves "government" better at this job than anyone else? 

Quote:
The belief that companies would destroy their environment is not shared by mining companies that employ strip mining. Environmental damage like the Buffalo Creek disaster that resulted in an avalanche of toxic sludge that destroyed real estate and wiped out aquatic life 36 miles downstream. People suffered from health problems the rest of their lives and had to move out of their residences. The government installed saftey measures but as is with what currently goes on the companies have a large economic influence and discourage any enforcement of these regulations resulting in numerous other disasters that damage the environment.

Sue their asses to oblivion. Without the bureaucracy, lawsuits will be a bigger consideration to these companies than they are now. And after all, that's all the government is going to do anyways, because it's a corporation with limited liability.

Quote:
So pollution doesn't just happen to be polite and stay where it's told.

It doesn't have to. 


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote:

Vessel wrote:

Never said I intended to. I was simply pointing out that if you are going to say those who oppose your political ideology are making unfounded assertions then perhaps you should support your assertions.

Ask for support and I'll support. But if people did nothing but make unfounded assertions all the time, they're not worth the effort to rebut with anything but unfounded assertions.

Zhwazi wrote:
What if the group that desired to force their will was a buisness that owned all gun production and did not allow sale of their guns but to those who supported their buisness' goals?

Guns are so easy to make it's a damn joke. There's probably 20 manufacturers of AR-15s not counting companies like KT ordnance that sell 80% complete recievers for finishing at home, something that can be done by anyone with a mill, and this is just AR-15s. There is no business that owns all gun production because gun production is not an object to own.

Quote:
A nice merger between the protection agency and the gun production buisness sure would make for one powerful buisness

Not at all. Since anyone else can make guns and anyone else can compete for protection contracts, they don't have the same monopoly on force a government does.

Quote:
Not to mention, who are you counting on to do this 'shooting at'?

People defending themselves.

Quote:
It seems that throughout history that individuals have been more than willing to be oppressed rather than risk their lives to fight for their own freedom.

Only in collectives. People who consider themselves independant individuals are far less prone to this. Hell, the Revolutionary War was fought over a fucking 3% tax.

Quote:
it is only when people are organized into militias or armies that they become willing to risk their lives for ideologies.

That's because anyone willing to risk their lives for ideologies gets categorically classified as a militia type.

Quote:
Once you have militias and armies you are going to need regulatory bodies for them.

No you don't.

Quote:
People get shot at as a result of actions that they are completely aware will get them shot at all the time.

Yes.

Quote:
Where the hell do you live?

Not relevant.

Quote:
And very often it is in the name of greed.

Nobody does anything in the name of greed. Consider the words you just used. People do things in the name of communism saying "To further the Communist cause". People do not do things in the name of greed saying "To advance greed through the world". They just do it because they're greedy, and all human action is greedy.

Quote:
Strictly to get the business that others are getting.

Which is why Microsoft and Apple shoot it out every so often, correct?

Quote:
Go to any ghetto street corner and you can see this type of behavior being lived out daily.

Okay, where the hell do you live? I'm in the ghetto, but there's no shooting being carried out daily.

Quote:
The illegal drug buisness is a beautiful example of a completely unregulated market.

No, Linux is a beautiful example of a completely unregulated market. The illegal drug business is a beautiful example of an underground business governed by corrupt police and fueled by the massive egos of gangstas.

Quote:
Who makes this law that youy can only own so much of the environment and why would you restrict my personal freedom to own the entire environment if others were of their own freewill willing to sell it to me? That is a restriction upon my business.

It's not a law. It's just the way things work. You're not going to get people to sell it to you for nothing, and that's a simple fact. You might as well ask why Microsoft doesn't just buy up the entire United States.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Higher wages does

Quote:
Higher wages does not mean higher standard of living. Money is not wealth. Stuff is. If you are producing less stuff, then the undersupply raises prices anyways. Getting higher wages does not make you rich. If it did, why not set the minimum wage at $300 per hour? That would be wonderful for the poor, wouldn't it?

Standard of living is measured by such things income equality, poverty, availability of goods, educational standards and social rights, not by how many tvs you have.

Quote:
By stealing from peter to pay paul. Sorry, if I can't steal from peter to pay paul, nor can government.

Since everybody receives social security it isn't stealing from those who receive it. 

Quote:
You didn't rebut my point that it creates dependancy and helplessness.

You didn't have a point, you made an unsupported assertion. 

Quote:
If someone is doing work for me for $5 an hour which earns me $6 per hour for a net profit of $1 per hour, I will hire them.

If you raise the minimum wage to $6.15, I'm now losing 15 cents per hour that I have him employed. Sorry, that bitch is fired. I'm not going to lose money just to give someone a job.

So it's their fault because you can't run a company properly.  Care to provide any real life examples or just imaginary scenarios? 

Quote:
That's because there's other things affecting the unemployment rate than minimum wages. In Kansas there's fucking nothing happening. Therefore low demand for jobs. In Hawaii stuff is going on constantly. Therefore high demand for jobs which overcomes the offset from minimum wage.

I didn't realize there wasn't anything happening in the town I live in.  Thanks for that informed rebuttal.  However your argument was the raising the minimum wage increases unemployment but you didn't care to respond to the facts other than to say that there's a lot of stuff happening.  If the rest of your comments continue like this I won't waste my time trying to educate one who clearly has a habit of spurning education. 

Quote:
By what measurement? Anything which subsidizes big business or bureaucrats is for the middle and upper class, while only money directly recieved by the poor in the form of handouts is given to the poor?

Well if you want to redefine it then sure, you are right.  But an accurate description would entail that interest tax deductions on mortages, student grants, tax free investment dividends, and Medicaid.  

Quote:
Not dependant or helpless, just taking advantage of something that's in front of them. The upper and middle class wouldn't suddenly collapse if you took away whatever subsidy you have them, the lower class would.

So a company that loses a military contract and has to lay off workers these unemployed workers, and let's say they don't get unemployment, will be able to maintain their same level of income because their "handouts" have been taken away.  So where does this money magically come from?  Being in a area with a lot of manufacturing jobs (I know, it's Kansas where there's nothing as you claim) when there were layoffs of 30,000 people from Boeing a lot of them ended up on public assitance and charity lines.  How is that possible if their middle class positions couldn't be affected?

Quote:
They can. If you have a functioning brain or a functioning body, you can do something productive.

Must be some more of that Libertarian wishful thinking.  The entire point of being disabled is that they aren't fully functioning.  I didn't know I'd have to point that out. 

Quote:
Steven Hawking seems to be doing well for himself as a quadrapalegic.

That is an odd standard to go by.  So if someone comes back from Iraq in their war for corporate profits and they are missing limbs they can just hope into a career in astrophysics.  That's interesting, I don't know if I can even try taking you seriously anymore. 

Quote:
No, not at all. We just suggest that maybe, just fucking maybe, it's not right to rob Peter to pay Paul. The ends do not and cannot justify the means. Besides, it's not like voluntary charity is nonexistant. If you let people take home more of their own money, you'll actually get more people giving more money.

Good ol' trickle down economics eh?  That worked out so well in the past.  Voluntary charity wasn't enough to assist with all the poor during the Great Depression so the government had to intervene.  Your solution would be to avoid government support therefore there wouldn't have been enough charity so plenty of people would have died from starvation.  As long as you get yours right? 

Quote:
Which is as much an arguement for the ineffectiveness of government at solving problems as it is for the difficulty of finding productive labor in Michigan.

The statistics showed quite the opposite, it prevented a lot of people from going homeless.  How is Michigan different than any other state?  I suppose you think they could have all just gone to Hawaii or become astrophysicists, but that's more Libertarian prayer in action. 

Quote:
People don't need jobs, they need money. You do not need a job to make money. A job is just an employment contract.

Yeah, I suppose the money can just magically appear without working. 

Quote:
Strawman. If nothing else you'd be getting it on the "Okay here's the care but you owe us such and such dollars over the next 24 months", just like how people buy cars. It's not like everyone that can't pay full price in cash for a car doesn't own one.

How is it a strawman when you just agreed to what I stated? 

Quote:
Did you even READ my response to your last post?

Yes, it wasn't satisfactory. 

 

Quote:
Would you work for 50 cents per hour? Me neither. Most people wouldn't. Therefore wages won't go down to 50 cents per hour. STFU.

Telling me to shut the fuck up.  Typical response I get from Libertarians.  Why bother paying someone a dollar an hour when you can get an Okie for 50 cents an hour.  If people are desperate enough they'll take what they can get or else organize a strike by forming a union and pressuring the business to pay more.  I doubt you are in favor of unions so you'll go the desperation route.  Since there are plenty of examples in American history where people will work for less when desperate your point is moot. 

Quote:
I don't like your attitude. Stop being a self-righteous prick or we're done here.

Yup, that's about what I expect.  You can't support your position so your response is nothing but insults.  How about you grow up, get an education and then come back when you can talk with the adults.  I'm not wasting my time with uninformed children. 


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm tired of you assuming

I'm tired of you assuming I'm an idiot. Go fuck yourself somewhere else until you've learned how to not be an obnoxious prick.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Vessel

Zhwazi wrote:
Vessel wrote:

Never said I intended to. I was simply pointing out that if you are going to say those who oppose your political ideology are making unfounded assertions then perhaps you should support your assertions.

Ask for support and I'll support. But if people did nothing but make unfounded assertions all the time, they're not worth the effort to rebut with anything but unfounded assertions.

Zhwazi wrote:
Guns are so easy to make it's a damn joke. There's probably 20 manufacturers of AR-15s not counting companies like KT ordnance that sell 80% complete recievers for finishing at home, something that can be done by anyone with a mill, and this is just AR-15s. There is no business that owns all gun production because gun production is not an object to own.

So your answer is that one business will not come to control all gun manufacturing because it won't happen because its too easy to make a gun. Where does KT ordinance get the components for their guns? How many seperate forging plants are there that make gun components? How many places forge the materials needed for gun component production?

Let's go a step further, or several steps further because advanced weaponry can sure mess up the gun totin' crowd. What about nuclear warhead production?  

 

Quote:
Not at all. Since anyone else can make guns and anyone else can compete for protection contracts, they don't have the same monopoly on force a government does.

Contracts? Where do we get these contracts? Contracts are regulations. Who enforces these contracts?

And there would definitely be a monopoly on force if the "protection agencies" (or unregulated police forces/armies as they are in real people language) combine to ensure that they get more market share, in fact, all the market when they all merge.

 

Quote:
Only in collectives. People who consider themselves independant individuals are far less prone to this. Hell, the Revolutionary War was fought over a fucking 3% tax.

Not because people considered themselves independent individuals. It was not until they considered themselves a collective body, with a heirarchy and command structure, that they fought the revolutionary war.  


Zhwazi wrote:
Vessel wrote:
Once you have militias and armies you are going to need regulatory bodies for them.

No you don't.

You need some command structure. Without on you can achieve nothing as an armed force. Guess what this command structure is.

Quote:
Nobody does anything in the name of greed. Consider the words you just used. People do things in the name of communism saying "To further the Communist cause". People do not do things in the name of greed saying "To advance greed through the world". They just do it because they're greedy, and all human action is greedy.

Silly semantics. I used 'in the name of greed' to mean 'because they are greedy'. Since when has greed been an ideology or dogma which people could do something in the name of? But because they are greedy they will advance ideologies and dogmas which give them more power than their fellow men. With force when necessary. When this happens the more powerful will always find a way to remove the oppress the less powerful as a way of holding onto their power. It has happened throughout history and so far democracy has been the single best defense against this. The best you have to support libertarianism actually functioning as this utopian dreamland in practical application is saying "It would work" contrary to what we see as the way people tend to naturally behave.  

Quote:
Which is why Microsoft and Apple shoot it out every so often, correct?

Of course not. They are regulated by the governemnt and subject to the laws of this country. What was the point of trying to use regulated businesses operating under democratic law as an example of how unregulated lawless business would function? It makes no sense to try and draw that analogy. 

Quote:
Okay, where the hell do you live? I'm in the ghetto, but there's no shooting being carried out daily.

I don't live in the ghetto, but I live not far from New Orleans. It is daily there.  

Quote:
No, Linux is a beautiful example of a completely unregulated market. The illegal drug business is a beautiful example of an underground business governed by corrupt police and fueled by the massive egos of gangstas.

Which is exactly what a unregulated buisness is except in libertarianism it no longer needs to be underground. 

I know very little about linux except that it is an open source operating system software, correct? Explain to me how this is an example of how an unregulated business would function under libertarianism.

 

Quote:
It's not a law. It's just the way things work. You're not going to get people to sell it to you for nothing, and that's a simple fact. You might as well ask why Microsoft doesn't just buy up the entire United States.

So it, simply can't happen because it won't happen. Based on what? Faith?  if someone offered me enough money for the property I own, I'd probably sell it even if it was the last piece of environment left. Hell, afterwords, when I convinced the poor people to sell themselves to me, the army they formed would be enough to take my property back by force.

Microsoft can't by up the United States because its regulated. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. (another flawed analogy).

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: So your

Vessel wrote:

So your answer is that one business will not come to control all gun manufacturing because it won't happen because its too easy to make a gun. Where does KT ordinance get the components for their guns? How many seperate forging plants are there that make gun components? How many places forge the materials needed for gun component production?

Too many to buy and enforce such a stupid rule.

Quote:
Let's go a step further, or several steps further because advanced weaponry can sure mess up the gun totin' crowd. What about nuclear warhead production?

Demand is low because price is high. What about it? 

 

Quote:
Contracts? Where do we get these contracts? Contracts are regulations. Who enforces these contracts?

Contracts are not regulations.

Contracts are enforced by whatever enforcement is named or not prohibited in the contract.

 

Quote:
And there would definitely be a monopoly on force if the "protection agencies" (or unregulated police forces/armies as they are in real people language) combine to ensure that they get more market share, in fact, all the market when they all merge.

This is massively unlikely because it's not difficult to become a protection agency either. Buy a $300 AK, offer the neighbors a price below what anyone else is offering, and you've become a protection agency. The barrier to entry is so low it's not going to keep anyone out.

Quote:
Not because people considered themselves independent individuals. It was not until they considered themselves a collective body, with a heirarchy and command structure, that they fought the revolutionary war.

They considered themselves free individuals fighting for the same cause and agreeing on leaders, that's very different from considering yourself just part of a collective. 

Quote:
You need some command structure. Without on you can achieve nothing as an armed force. Guess what this command structure is.

You can achieve nothing but defense. And since that's the goal of a decentralized force, it's not a problem.

Quote:
Silly semantics. I used 'in the name of greed' to mean 'because they are greedy'. Since when has greed been an ideology or dogma which people could do something in the name of?

Exactly, that's why it sounded wrong to me. 

Quote:
But because they are greedy they will advance ideologies and dogmas which give them more power than their fellow men. With force when necessary.

Not necessarily.

Quote:
When this happens the more powerful will always find a way to remove the oppress the less powerful as a way of holding onto their power.

Yes, these groups are called governments... 

Quote:
It has happened throughout history and so far democracy has been the single best defense against this.

Then why isn't it working in Somalia, where the UN kept trying to set up a democracy?

Democracy is a god that failed. It's not that great. Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. There is nothing beautiful or good about democracy.

Quote:
The best you have to support libertarianism actually functioning as this utopian dreamland in practical application is saying "It would work" contrary to what we see as the way people tend to naturally behave.

I believe that people naturally behave selfishly and this is why it will work. You appear to believe that people naturally behave selfishly and this is why it will not work. As far as I can see you haven't attempted to hear why it will work because you're stuck and refuse to change from the idea that it will not work.

Quote:
Of course not. They are regulated by the governemnt and subject to the laws of this country. What was the point of trying to use regulated businesses operating under democratic law as an example of how unregulated lawless business would function? It makes no sense to try and draw that analogy.

Unregulated yes, lawless no.

If Microsoft wanted to eliminate Apple, they could do so without drawing attention to themselves. With as much money as they have, you'd think spending five billion to sink Apple would make good business sense (they did sink 4 billion on the Xbox alone) to eliminate a competitor. 

Quote:
I don't live in the ghetto, but I live not far from New Orleans. It is daily there.

How do you know?

Quote:
Which is exactly what a unregulated buisness is except in libertarianism it no longer needs to be underground.

 And once it is no longer underground it is not going to be violent.

Quote:
So it, simply can't happen because it won't happen. Based on what? Faith?

Are you seriously expecting somebody to just buy up the entire world? Do you really think that's possible?

Quote:
if someone offered me enough money for the property I own, I'd probably sell it even if it was the last piece of environment left.

Enough Money. And who has enough money to buy up the whole environment? 

Quote:
Hell, afterwords, when I convinced the poor people to sell themselves to me, the army they formed would be enough to take my property back by force.

That's seriously lame. You sold your land and now you're going to steal it back? 

Quote:
Microsoft can't by up the United States because its regulated. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. (another flawed analogy).

Microsoft could buy up the United States if it had enough money. The regulations don't pertain to how much land a company can own. 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Too many to

Zhwazi wrote:
Too many to buy and enforce such a stupid rule.

Not sure what this means. 

Quote:
Demand is low because price is high. What about it?

So nuclear warheads are a free market item. Anyone with enough money can purchase one, correct? Yeah. Hmmmm. 

Quote:
Contracts are not regulations.

Contracts are enforced by whatever enforcement is named or not prohibited in the contract.

Those are regulations. Who enforces these contracts anyway? Courts? 

Quote:
This is massively unlikely because it's not difficult to become a protection agency either. Buy a $300 AK, offer the neighbors a price below what anyone else is offering, and you've become a protection agency. The barrier to entry is so low it's not going to keep anyone out.

Good luck with that AK against the ACME protection agency employing just over 100,000 "protectors". The more protectors you have the more you can charge people for protection, or force them to pay for protection, more appropriately.

Quote:
They considered themselves free individuals fighting for the same cause and agreeing on leaders, that's very different from considering yourself just part of a collective.

I see no difference.

Quote:
You can achieve nothing but defense. And since that's the goal of a decentralized force, it's not a problem.

You can not even achieve defense against an organized agressor with a centralized command structure.  


Quote:
Vessel wrote:
But because they are greedy they will advance ideologies and dogmas which give them more power than their fellow men. With force when necessary.

Not necessarily.

Hardly convincing. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
When this happens the more powerful will always find a way to oppress the less powerful as a way of holding onto their power.

Yes, these groups are called governments...

Yep, and your liable to end up with a much less desirable one than democracy, say dictatorship, when you open up such a breeding ground for power sgrabs and dogmatic ideologies as you do with libertarianism.  

Quote:
Then why isn't it working in Somalia, where the UN kept trying to set up a democracy?

A failure for democracy to take hold does not point to a problem with democracy.  Your question is not relevant.

Quote:
Democracy is a god that failed. It's not that great. Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. There is nothing beautiful or good about democracy.

Democracy is not a god. The analogy is non-sensical in any way I can see. It sounds like something meaningless rhetoric a fundamentalist would spout. The more I hear people who support libertarianism speak (or write) the more dogmatic and religious it begins to sound. The above quote could have come from a Jihadist's speech.

Quote:
I believe that people naturally behave selfishly and this is why it will work. You appear to believe that people naturally behave selfishly and this is why it will not work. As far as I can see you haven't attempted to hear why it will work because you're stuck and refuse to change from the idea that it will not work.

No. So far I refuse to believe it would work because I see no evidence that would lead me to conclude that it would work. Sorry but you can't just paint everyone that disagrees with you with a brush of closed mindedness. It may make you seem righteous in your own mind, but it is unconvincing to anyone else and incredibly dishonest.

Quote:
Unregulated yes, lawless no.

Where do the laws come from? 

Quote:
If Microsoft wanted to eliminate Apple, they could do so without drawing attention to themselves. With as much money as they have, you'd think spending five billion to sink Apple would make good business sense (they did sink 4 billion on the Xbox alone) to eliminate a competitor.

I see no reason to believe that, if Microsoft could eliminate Apple, they would not. On what do you base the claim that they could? 

Quote:
How do you know?

Unless the media has started faking reports of murders then it isn't hard to know.

Quote:
And once it is no longer underground it is not going to be violent.

Unsupported assertion. 

Quote:
Are you seriously expecting somebody to just buy up the entire world? Do you really think that's possible?

I am simply taking the idea to its extreme to point out what I see as its inherent flaws. The existence of the problem is what matters. The scale on which it is exploited is limited only by the ingenuity and willingness of those who choose to exploit it.   

Quote:
That's seriously lame. You sold your land and now you're going to steal it back?

If I could afford to buy my own army, why not? I might steal your land too. Smiling

Anyway, on this topic, I assume that with libertarianism there is nothing to keep me from buying people if they are willing to sell themselves to me? 

Quote:
Microsoft could buy up the United States if it had enough money. The regulations don't pertain to how much land a company can own.

Ah, by 'the United States' you simply meant the land. But, still, they couldn't because the government would not allow them to. They would then have a monopoly on land and that would be illegal.

Actually, I'd never given much consideration to Libertarianism, but from what I've seen expressed here, it seems highly questionable and based a lot on hoping you can predict that each given person will behave in the particular necessary way, sometimes contrary to what we observe people tending to normally behave.   

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
[quote=Vessel] Actually,

[quote=Vessel]

Actually, I'd never given much consideration to Libertarianism, but from what I've seen expressed here, it seems highly questionable and based a lot on hoping you can predict that each given person will behave in the particular necessary way, sometimes contrary to what we observe people tending to normally behave.

Thank you, my point exactly.

Zhwazi wrote:

Preventing unwanted pregnancy is not the community's job. Preventing STDs is not the community's job. They are the jobs of the people directy involved. In this case, the two having sex.

I've noticed lately several agencies have surfaced in my community newspapers, begging the public to become foster parents. WTF? Who the hell are all these people putting unwanted kids out there? There are drugstores on almost every block in America now, and free clinics to boot, sex ed starting in what, 5th grade? And we have all these irresponsible people STILL?

Zhwazi, please tell me you see my point coupled with Vessel's last stmt.

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: I've

dassercha wrote:
I've noticed lately several agencies have surfaced in my community newspapers, begging the public to become foster parents. WTF? Who the hell are all these people putting unwanted kids out there? There are drugstores on almost every block in America now, and free clinics to boot, sex ed starting in what, 5th grade? And we have all these irresponsible people STILL?

Zhwazi, please tell me you see my point coupled with Vessel's last stmt.

I said people should be held responsible for their own actions, not that they would take responsibility for them. 


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I said people should be


I said people should be held responsible for their own actions, not that they would take responsibility for them.

Ok. Agreed.

So, how do we get generation after generation of people to stop making the same similar mistakes? On a macro-level, wouldn't we all be better off by coming up with solutions that would benefit said people? Would not this be a vested interest for all of us?

 

 

 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: Zhwazi

Vessel wrote:

Zhwazi wrote:
Too many to buy and enforce such a stupid rule.

Not sure what this means.

The number of steel makers, suppliers, iron ore miners, and so on is too numerous for it to be remotely practical to buy them all up.  And even if you did, it's likely that the person you bought it from would sell at an inflated price and then use the money to start another company doing the same thing in a bigger way.

Quote:
So nuclear warheads are a free market item. Anyone with enough money can purchase one, correct? Yeah. Hmmmm.

Nothing to stop private armies like mutually assured destruction. 

Quote:
Those are regulations. Who enforces these contracts anyway? Courts?

Yes, but not necessarily courts by government. 

Quote:
Good luck with that AK against the ACME protection agency employing just over 100,000 "protectors". The more protectors you have the more you can charge people for protection, or force them to pay for protection, more appropriately.

The more you piss off someone with an AK the more frustrated your efforts will become. Guerilla warfare is not to be underestimated. A pissed off hunter with a .308 isn't going to play nice or fair.

Quote:
I see no difference.

There's two kinds of collectives. When you mentally group people together that doesn't necessarily create a link between them which allows them to be classified as a single unit. A mental group of objects on my desk can form a set in my mind, but that doesn't mean it's logical to deal with them all as one object.

A group of individuals with a common purpose does not necessarily form a group that can be dealt with as one object, just like you cannot treat all red objects as a single collective unit.  It's that kind of difference.

Quote:
You can not even achieve defense against an organized agressor with a centralized command structure.

Yes you can. You don't need a "command structure". An army of peers that agrees to do something can do it as well as an army of hierarchy that agrees to do the same thing. 

Quote:
Hardly convincing.

 How? It's not necessarily true that all people will do anything to achieve their goals. As for those that do, why don't they just take political power- oh wait.

Quote:
Yep, and your liable to end up with a much less desirable one than democracy, say dictatorship, when you open up such a breeding ground for power sgrabs and dogmatic ideologies as you do with libertarianism.

Let them. Just get them to leave me alone and we're cool. 

Quote:
A failure for democracy to take hold does not point to a problem with democracy. Your question is not relevant.

Yes it is. They had democracy. They had elections. Democracy took hold. But the Somalis recognize something that we don't. When one group gets into power, they're going to abuse it. That's why they tore down the democracies. 

Quote:
Democracy is not a god. The analogy is non-sensical in any way I can see.

It is hailed as a solution to all problems in government all the time, as if democracy can do anything. Democracy is not a good thing. I want to hit people when they start telling me how great democracy is as if it is the very emobidment of freedom itself. 

Quote:
It sounds like something meaningless rhetoric a fundamentalist would spout. The more I hear people who support libertarianism speak (or write) the more dogmatic and religious it begins to sound. The above quote could have come from a Jihadist's speech.

Your point being? I just want you and other people to stop talking about democracy like it's the holy grail of governance.

Quote:
No. So far I refuse to believe it would work because I see no evidence that would lead me to conclude that it would work.

I see no evidence that would lead me to conclude that government would work. First of all, we have to figure out what "work" means. If it means maintain a peaceful society with a minimum of violence, then government, which is nothing without violence, and which is the most inherently violent institution devised by man, is an irrational solution.

Quote:
Sorry but you can't just paint everyone that disagrees with you with a brush of closed mindedness. It may make you seem righteous in your own mind, but it is unconvincing to anyone else and incredibly dishonest.

Sorry. There is one of those trends though.

Quote:
Where do the laws come from?

Private property. I set the rules on my own land and pertaining to the use of my own property. 

Quote:
I see no reason to believe that, if Microsoft could eliminate Apple, they would not. On what do you base the claim that they could?

Microsoft can afford to sink 4 billion on Xbox. Do you think they couldn't raise a private army and destroy Apple's entire production line with that much money if their intent was to do so?

Quote:
Unsupported assertion.

Aboveground businesses like Microsoft don't violently attack Apple because they're aboveground. Not because they can't. Not because the laws prohibit it (they have so much money that the laws are not going to stop them). 

Quote:
I am simply taking the idea to its extreme to point out what I see as its inherent flaws. The existence of the problem is what matters. The scale on which it is exploited is limited only by the ingenuity and willingness of those who choose to exploit it.

Do you seriously believe that someone could buy up the entire planet? The whole ecosystem? Everything?

Quote:
If I could afford to buy my own army, why not? I might steal your land too. Smiling

Yeah, you have fun with the landmines and overlapping fields of fire on my turrets. They're actually surprisingly inexpensive if done right.

Quote:
Anyway, on this topic, I assume that with libertarianism there is nothing to keep me from buying people if they are willing to sell themselves to me?

Right. 

Quote:
Ah, by 'the United States' you simply meant the land. But, still, they couldn't because the government would not allow them to. They would then have a monopoly on land and that would be illegal.

If monopolies are illegal, why isn't the government? 

Quote:
Actually, I'd never given much consideration to Libertarianism, but from what I've seen expressed here, it seems highly questionable and based a lot on hoping you can predict that each given person will behave in the particular necessary way, sometimes contrary to what we observe people tending to normally behave.

No, it's based on other things entirely. I gave the arguements in the second post in this thread. Moral consistency, economic efficiency, that power corrupts, that knowledge is imperfect and therefore irrational to shove down others throats, fecal alchemy, deflection of taxation, the slavery of law, the destruction that is government.

Statism is morally inconsistent, economically inefficient, ignores the corruption of those in power, assumes perfect knowledge and proceeds to enslave and destroy in it's name, it is not effective, tax money could be used in any number of better causes determined by the owner of the money, asserts a difference between involuntary servitude to a man in office and involuntary servitude to a man not in office, and ignores the simple fact that government does nothing but destroy and threaten to destroy.

Whatever human nature is, humans are better off in liberty, and the libertarian system is the system most conductive to liberty. Government is the negation of liberty. If men are bad, a government of men will be worse. If men are good, they do not need government. If people are naturally collectivistic, they can be so, as long as their collectivism does not impede other collectives (including individuals claiming independance, or a collective of one), which they should recognize as detrimental to their collective in the first place. Whatever people naturally are, they are best off in liberty.

Everyone else makes claims about human nature, but this goes under the imperfect knowledge problem. I don't know what human nature is, therefore I will not shove my idea of human nature down your throat, provided you do not shove yours down mine. And this system of mutual tolerance is what we call "Libertarianism".


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: Ok.

dassercha wrote:
Ok. Agreed. So, how do we get generation after generation of people to stop making the same similar mistakes? On a macro-level, wouldn't we all be better off by coming up with solutions that would benefit said people? Would not this be a vested interest for all of us?

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with libertarianism anymore?

If you see a problem you believe needs to be solved, rally people for the cause and go out and solve it. Just please don't force me to support it if I don't want to.

As for the problem of responsibility, nothing will make a person more responsible than busting their ass on hard concrete as a result of their mistakes. It hurts, nobody had to hurt them, they just hurt themselves, and they will learn not to repeat the mistake. Government naturally offers a safety net which allows people to act irresponsibly and fall into without learning the hard lessons that they should about what they did.

Just stop absolving people of responsibility for their actions and softening the metaphysical punishment for failure. 


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi, I hate this whole

Zhwazi, I hate this whole quoting thing (don't know how onacona I'm cumputtter iileteitee) so I apologize for not following in the standard format. I agree with you. Corporations are an invention of big government. Postions of power are saught primarily by those who shouldn't have them. And yes, when the feds act in place of private entities they usually screw up beyond belief.

 

What our government does offer is a system of "checks and balances".  I know, they don't work the way our forefathers intended. We end up with the corrupt checking the corrupt. The good news is: they all have unique interests in mind. America is always better off with a house and senate that's split between Reps & Dems. It helps to keep asshole "A" from  over riding asshole "B". Neither side can pull anything too crazy when they have equal oppostion from the other. 

If you want to step towards libertarianism the only plausible way (albeit not very plausable) is to change our current method of voting. We now have a sustem of plurality. That means 1 citizen, 1 vote. It doesn't work. It's lead us into this crippled 2 party system that is incapable of making a meaningful reduction in legislation. Few people will vote outside of party lines because their votes are then "wasted" and by default the worst candidate is empowered. Most reasonable Americans are only choosing the lessor of evils when they go to the polls.

A possible solution: eliminate the electoral college. Eliminate our system of plurality. Work on a run off system or on a percentage/aproval basis (if you're familiar with the borda count and all it's faults, think of a new and improved borda system). Every citizen votes for every candidate on an approval/percentage basis. Adolf gets 2% of my vote, Jackie Chan gets 45%, Joe Walsh gets 100%. Once all percentages are calculated, well. Of course it's not a fail safe mechanism and by it's design would be rife with corruption without diligant oversight. But it's a pie in the sky dream I have.

Until it happens (which it won't because the powers that be would never allow it), I really don't see a realastic means to true libertarianism. When you talk of corporations being a government concoction, you don't address how society could actualy rid its self of them. What would you propose? Our current 2 party system is absolutely loyal to these big spenders. This big money is responsible for many of the bullshit laws polluting the books. This big money is viewed by the general public as a free market in action.  It contradicts itself.

It's ugly but we're stuck with it. Why? Unless you think a new political scheme or a winable civil war is a viable option, the hope for true libertarianism is utterly hopeless.

But let's say puff the magic dragon made it so. It would only be a matter of time. Eventually the brightest in society would be forced to render control over the dull and illwilled. Crimes against common morality cannot be tolerated in any society (murder, rape, molestation). These crimes would be perpetuated by allowing the dull and the illwilled to breed. They would need to stopped through legislation. In the end, the society that rules itself would turn into another semi corrupt, partially inept form of government. It'd be just like the 1 we have now.

 


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Edger wrote:

Edger wrote:

What our government does offer is a system of "checks and balances". I know, they don't work the way our forefathers intended. We end up with the corrupt checking the corrupt. The good news is: they all have unique interests in mind. America is always better off with a house and senate that's split between Reps & Dems. It helps to keep asshole "A" from over riding asshole "B". Neither side can pull anything too crazy when they have equal oppostion from the other.

If the goal is to stop asshole A from overriding asshole B, the obvious solution is to get rid of both of them and scrap the whole government so neither asshole has anything to take control of in the first place.

Quote:
If you want to step towards libertarianism the only plausible way (albeit not very plausable) is to change our current method of voting. We now have a sustem of plurality. That means 1 citizen, 1 vote. It doesn't work. It's lead us into this crippled 2 party system that is incapable of making a meaningful reduction in legislation. Few people will vote outside of party lines because their votes are then "wasted" and by default the worst candidate is empowered. Most reasonable Americans are only choosing the lessor of evils when they go to the polls.

A possible solution: eliminate the electoral college. Eliminate our system of plurality. Work on a run off system or on a percentage/aproval basis (if you're familiar with the borda count and all it's faults, think of a new and improved borda system). Every citizen votes for every candidate on an approval/percentage basis. Adolf gets 2% of my vote, Jackie Chan gets 45%, Joe Walsh gets 100%. Once all percentages are calculated, well. Of course it's not a fail safe mechanism and by it's design would be rife with corruption without diligant oversight. But it's a pie in the sky dream I have.

I made another thread about this. Experience says it's got it's own problems.

Quote:
Until it happens (which it won't because the powers that be would never allow it), I really don't see a realastic means to true libertarianism.

I see seasteading as a realistic means, and living underground (in the beneath the radar sense) as a realistic means.

A mass political movement of civil disobedience would fill up the jails faster than they can be built. Just 5% of the population openly defying stupid laws and getting themselves imprisoned would overcrowd the prison system like nothing imaginable, making the law utterly unenforceable, and if sustained, resulting in the collapse of the government. Ghandi drove out the British like this. Rallying that many people to action in a large area is difficult, so I picture it being a more local thing to start (yay FSP).

Quote:
When you talk of corporations being a government concoction, you don't address how society could actualy rid its self of them. What would you propose? Our current 2 party system is absolutely loyal to these big spenders. This big money is responsible for many of the bullshit laws polluting the books. This big money is viewed by the general public as a free market in action. It contradicts itself.

I propose we abolish the government.

Quote:
It's ugly but we're stuck with it. Why? Unless you think a new political scheme or a winable civil war is a viable option, the hope for true libertarianism is utterly hopeless.

Maybe on land. Oceanic, and, in the future, space-based self-sufficient living is absolutely unregulatable by any government due to the dynamic geography and for all practical purposes infinite available space to grow into. Libertarianism is the only viable system under dynamic geography because when people are unhappy with their government, they'll just abandon it.

Quote:
But let's say puff the magic dragon made it so. It would only be a matter of time. Eventually the brightest in society would be forced to render control over the dull and illwilled.

Only if the dull and illwilled made niusances of themselves. Otherwise they'll kill themselves off for bing dull and illwitted. Natural selection works in humans too. As long as they aren't harassing the more intelligent, no control would be necessary. And if they are, the threat of the liberal application of 00 buck to facial tissue will quickly solve the problem.

Quote:
Crimes against common morality cannot be tolerated in any society (murder, rape, molestation). These crimes would be perpetuated by allowing the dull and the illwilled to breed.

Criminality is not hereditary. Did you just make an arguement for eugenics?

Quote:
They would need to stopped through legislation.

A typical statist assumption is that legislation will solve all problems, and is often the only solution to the problem. But that's just not true.

Quote:
In the end, the society that rules itself would turn into another semi corrupt, partially inept form of government. It'd be just like the 1 we have now.

Now what's going on here is obvious. You've never experienced any other system therefore all other systems naturally lead back to the present system, as you find it difficult to envision any other being sustainable, as you have never seen them.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: I propose we

Zhwazi wrote:
I propose we abolish the government.

Should we go farther than just that?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Zhwazi wrote: I

qbg wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:
I propose we abolish the government.

Should we go farther than just that?

How do you mean?


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: qbg

Zhwazi wrote:

qbg wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:
I propose we abolish the government.

Should we go farther than just that?

How do you mean?

Abolish other concepts than just government.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Government is more than an

Government is more than an idea, it's a system. It's impossible to abolish an idea, we can just abolish the system built around that idea.

And it's not so much that it is government as the involuntary nature of it. Voluntary systems built around bad ideas should be tolerated; they'll fail on their own simply for being bad ideas. It's involuntary systems that need to be gotten rid of.

A government of unanimous consent is fine.

A church being harmless is fine.

A government which forces it's will on others is not.

A church supporting inquisitions and heretic-burning is not.

Being intolerant of nonaggressive systems is the nature of governments and fundamentalist churches, to do the same is to make ourselves no better than them.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, concepts isn't the

Yeah, concepts isn't the best word...

Anyways, earlier you expressed a negative opinion on democracy, saying it would be like two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

What do you propose instead?

If it is something like "the market" or "one dollar, one vote", wouldn't that be like one rich wolf and several poor sheep voting on dinner? 

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Kalnik
Kalnik's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:

qbg wrote:

Yeah, concepts isn't the best word...

Anyways, earlier you expressed a negative opinion on democracy, saying it would be like two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

What do you propose instead?

If it is something like "the market" or "one dollar, one vote", wouldn't that be like one rich wolf and several poor sheep voting on dinner?

 

When you "vote" with money, you're not really voting. When a rich person spends his/her money in a free market, they don't choose for other people, they choose for themselves. Free markets don't impose upon people. Doesn't matter whether or not you are rich.  The phrase "voting with money" is nothing but a metaphor.  Voting implies that you are choosing for more than just yourself.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, what Kalnik said.

Yeah, what Kalnik said. Markets allow each individual to choose on their own. Democracy is where all individuals choose collectively. It's the difference between individualism and collectivism. And votes are limited, while wealth is not.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
So for people who aren't

So for people who aren't satisfied with the present system I guess there may be some appeal in the ideologies of Libertarianism. It has that, "Wow, then I could become somebody," appeal, along with the "Escape from New York" thrill, for those with the Ozarks militia mentality. But for people who have either worked hard to achieve their present social and economic status in the present system, or have inherited it, and who at the moment are more than happy with where they are, what is the appeal. The higher the chance for civil unrest, the less secure my money is, and in such a system there seems to me to be a much better opportunity for widespread civil unrest.

Though the fact that I could buy people is almost enough of a sell. I've always wanted an army. I'd prefer it was 'of the undead' but being as that will most likely never be possible, 'of the poor' would do.

If you want to try that 'civil disobedience/overthrow the government' thing however, I will be more than willing to watch from in front of my television and make the best of whatever comes of it. Good luck to you. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: So for

Vessel wrote:

So for people who aren't satisfied with the present system I guess there may be some appeal in the ideologies of Libertarianism. It has that, "Wow, then I could become somebody," appeal, along with the "Escape from New York" thrill, for those with the Ozarks militia mentality. But for people who have either worked hard to achieve their present social and economic status in the present system, or have inherited it, and who at the moment are more than happy with where they are, what is the appeal.

Moral consistency. Libertarianism is counter-archoexceptionalism. Government is people, it's wrong for people to hurt each other, therefore it's wrong for government to hurt people. Believing otherwise is inconsistent, (it's okay for me to kill you, but not okay for you to kill me) and irrational.

 

Quote:
The higher the chance for civil unrest,

Under government violence is far more widespread. It's just disguised as "Law enforcement". 

Quote:
the less secure my money is

Actually your money would be more secure if you didn't have to worry about the IRS taking it out of your every paycheck, and if you didn't have to use fiat money. 

 

Quote:
and in such a system there seems to me to be a much better opportunity for widespread civil unrest.

You said this one already. Problem is, in your mind, violence perpetrated by government is not violence. 

Quote:
Though the fact that I could buy people is almost enough of a sell. I've always wanted an army. I'd prefer it was 'of the undead' but being as that will most likely never be possible, 'of the poor' would do.

You can do that today anyways. Just get contracts and a notary to sign it and bingo


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Wouldn't a democratic

Wouldn't a democratic decision making structure be better? (assuming the people are rational)  Assuming you want maximum efficiency, it would allow the people to choose non-market methods when they yield higher efficiency and market methods when they do.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Another thought: how free

Another thought: how free are free markets?

1) A transaction between two identities will favor the more powerful identity.
2) #1 usually leads to the more powerful gaining power or similar (like wealth)
3) Given that transactions are happening often, #1 and #2 leads to a positive feedback cycle
4) #3 creates conditions where one group can start to impose its will on others
5) #4 yields that one group to gain power faster
6) #4 and #5 yield to eventual coercion.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
With libertarianism what

With libertarianism what stops me from killing my children? They are free to kill me in self defense, but probably not able. Or what stops me to selling my children as sex slaves?

I'm just asking questions to get a better understanding of how complete freedom is good. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Wouldn't a

qbg wrote:

Wouldn't a democratic decision making structure be better? (assuming the people are rational) Assuming you want maximum efficiency, it would allow the people to choose non-market methods when they yield higher efficiency and market methods when they do.

When are non-market methods more efficient?

qbg wrote:
1) A transaction between two identities will favor the more powerful identity.

No it won't. It's mutual gain, not zero-sum. In a voluntary transaction, everyone benefits or nobody transacts in the first place.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: With

Vessel wrote:

With libertarianism what stops me from killing my children? They are free to kill me in self defense, but probably not able. Or what stops me to selling my children as sex slaves?

I'm just asking questions to get a better understanding of how complete freedom is good.

The same thing that stops it today. Essentially nothing. It's not like the police stop you from killing your children, they're not there to protect your kids when you attack them. All they can do is threaten to punish you later, assuming you get caught. There already is a sex slave trade and pedophilia which the government hasn't managed to stop.

I ask how government is actually a solution to these things. Just because it's trying to do something about it doesn't mean it's working, or that it's not actually counterproductive (in many cases it is). 

It's not like there's a system that magically stops everyone from hurting others. There are just systems which minimize the amount of harm being done. Libertarianism is a system which minimizes the harm being done.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: The same

Zhwazi wrote:

The same thing that stops it today. Essentially nothing. It's not like the police stop you from killing your children, they're not there to protect your kids when you attack them. All they can do is threaten to punish you later, assuming you get caught. There already is a sex slave trade and pedophilia which the government hasn't managed to stop.

I ask how government is actually a solution to these things. Just because it's trying to do something about it doesn't mean it's working, or that it's not actually counterproductive (in many cases it is).

It's not like there's a system that magically stops everyone from hurting others. There are just systems which minimize the amount of harm being done. Libertarianism is a system which minimizes the harm being done.

In other words children have absolutely no recourse and are effectively property of their parents until they are of age to defend themselves. 

How do you figure "the same that stops it today" is in any way a rational answer? Essentially nothing is not nothing. I can give you empirical proof of that. And, besides, even to say essentially nothing stops it today is ducking the point. What you are basically saying is since we can't stop it completely might as well not try to stop it at all. Fuck those kids, they should protect themselves.

Now, how about you go and tell those people who have gone into social work in the area of child welfare that every child they have saved from an abusive situation is essentially nothing. At least in our present system something can be done, and contrary to what you state in your unsupported assertions, it often is. Not every child  is kept safe but many, many  children have been saved from abusive situations because we have a system that makes it possible to savesome ofg them. With, well let's just call it anarchy as that is the specific brand of libertarianism you are advocating, not only would there would be absolutely nothing that would be done about it, there would be absolutely nothing that could be done about it.

So, so far I can buy slaves, sell children into sexual slavery or whatever, purchase a nuclear war head (money allowed), raise an army to take from others who can't afford protection (money allowed). And what we've basically done is take one big imperfect centralized government with checks and balances and turn it into a lot of unchecked fuedal micro governments run by businesses. And this is what we call absolute freedom and moral cconsistency. Cool.

Just for kicks, do you consider morals to be completely relative? 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: qbg

Zhwazi wrote:

qbg wrote:

Wouldn't a democratic decision making structure be better? (assuming the people are rational) Assuming you want maximum efficiency, it would allow the people to choose non-market methods when they yield higher efficiency and market methods when they do.

When are non-market methods more efficient?


For non-free market methods, an example might be power lines; a community might decide that it would want to give one company a monopoly in power in its area to prevent unneeded duplication of resources.

Also, a community may not wish to have some companies invest in their area even if they wish to.

At the most general level, using the democratic method to make a decision rather than the market makes sense when a community wishes to collectively do something.
Quote:

qbg wrote:
1) A transaction between two identities will favor the more powerful identity.

No it won't. It's mutual gain, not zero-sum. In a voluntary transaction, everyone benefits or nobody transacts in the first place.

Obviously both sides of the transaction would gain or else it would not take place; however, that does not mean that the gain will not be equal.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: In other

Vessel wrote:

In other words children have absolutely no recourse and are effectively property of their parents until they are of age to defend themselves.

No. They can sue you. 

Quote:
How do you figure "the same that stops it today" is in any way a rational answer? Essentially nothing is not nothing. I can give you empirical proof of that. And, besides, even to say essentially nothing stops it today is ducking the point. What you are basically saying is since we can't stop it completely might as well not try to stop it at all. Fuck those kids, they should protect themselves.

No, I'm just saying that there is no physical barrier which prevents you from killing your kids, there's an emotional barrier that we still have today, a rational barrier that should tell you it's stupid, and a punishment after the fact. Don't use "we". It's a deceptive collectivizing word creating imaginary links where none exists. If the government can't stop it, there's no need for government to try, it's a waste of money. But "we" are not the government

Quote:
Now, how about you go and tell those people who have gone into social work in the area of child welfare that every child they have saved from an abusive situation is essentially nothing.

I tell them that what they should do is tell the kids to run away from home to get out of the abusive situation. Taking them away by force, against the will of the parent and child, is fucking stupid. 

Quote:
At least in our present system something can be done, and contrary to what you state in your unsupported assertions, it often is.

Hey, I don't care if you want to spend your money getting kids out of abusive situations, but you have no right to steal my money to do so. 

 

Quote:
Not every child is kept safe but many, many children have been saved from abusive situations because we have a system that makes it possible to savesome ofg them.

Fine, do so. Don't steal my money to do it and I don't care. 

Quote:
With, well let's just call it anarchy as that is the specific brand of libertarianism you are advocating, not only would there would be absolutely nothing that would be done about it, there would be absolutely nothing that could be done about it.

Tell the kid to run away and help him then. The parent doesn't own the kids as property. Once the kid can take responsibility for his own actions, he's a person, with the right to leave.

Quote:
So, so far I can buy slaves, sell children into sexual slavery or whatever, purchase a nuclear war head (money allowed), raise an army to take from others who can't afford protection (money allowed). And what we've basically done is take one big imperfect centralized government with checks and balances and turn it into a lot of unchecked fuedal micro governments run by businesses. And this is what we call absolute freedom and moral cconsistency. Cool.

You can buy slaves if you can find people willing to sell themselves into slavery. You can't sell kids into sexual slavery because you don't own them, they do. While physically possible, it would be illegal in the relevant sense. What are you going to do with a nuclear warhead? You can't target individuals with it, and if you threatened anyone with it, you're going to motivate a lot of people to kill you.

Quote:
Just for kicks, do you consider morals to be completely relative?

No.