Why do you disagree with libertarianism?
I believe they are all crazy
3.6% (9)
3.6% (9)
I believe their economic ideas are wrong
35.5% (89)
35.5% (89)
I believe their social ideas are wrong
6.8% (17)
6.8% (17)
I believe their economic and social ideas are wrong
25.5% (64)
25.5% (64)
I am a libertarian
17.5% (44)
17.5% (44)
Other
10.4% (26)
10.4% (26)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Why do you disagree with libertarianism?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

farson135:

Nielas:

farson135:
The roads themselves are handled by the Federal Government and some basic rules can be applied but the 70 hour per week limit would be handled by the "government without space". (more below).

farson135:

As for the speed limit scenario you posed, that would be one of the basic rules handled by the Federal or Local government.

You just contradicted yourself.

That is not a contradiction. Speed limits are different from telling a person how long they are allowed to drive.

I never talked about speed limits. In both posts I talked about driving time limits.

farson135:

I simply do not see how most of the laws of the "government without space" would not be superseded by laws made by the Federal or Local government. You already said that murder would not be allowed no matter what the rules of the respective "governments without space" say. I would assume that would also include things like starting a fire that will spread to someone else's space. How about dumping toxic waste into your well, knowing that it will poison the water for all your neighbors? There is countless possible interactions between individuals and those will lead to jurisdiction clashes.

Tell me something, is there a jurisdictional crisis every time there is a murder here in the US? Occasionally yes but that is usually a debate between city and county jurisdiction and not between federal and state.

The handful of laws that are handled by the Federal Government would not be able to contradict the laws of the "government without space" since the laws the Feds deal with and the laws the "government without space" deal with are mutually exclusive.

That's because there really are not that many jurisdiction compared to their size. In your scenario it seem that every city block or even every house could be considered a separate jurisdiction.

Also a lot of the jurisdictions "play nice" with each other because a bigger government would come in and force them if they did not.

Just look at water rights. Water easily crosses jurisdictions and if one jurisdiction decides that another is messing with their water supplies they will be furious.

farson135:

If a "government without space" can decide on property laws then it will quickly clash with another "government without space" about conflicting rules.

Why? It is not their jurisdiction.

Imagine if the two of us had a business on the edge of the city of Austin. You would be subject to the laws of the city and I would be subject to the laws of the county. You have a business in the city of Austin. I have a business right next door but in Travis County instead of Austin. YOU are subject to the bag ban (that is, you are not allowed to use plastic grocery bags) while I am not because it is a city law not a county law. Now in my example we have overlapping jurisdictions but you get the idea. Austin's laws do not apply outside of Austin. The laws of a "government without space" do not apply anywhere aside from the people under its jurisdiction.

Why can't a business in Austin just declare themselves a separate jurisdiction and ignore the ban? Or inversely, Austin declares that the land where your business is located is actually part of Austin and thus you are subject to the city ban.

farson135:

The larger government will have to adjudicate these disputes and force the participants to follow its rulings. After a while, we will be exactly back where we started.

What dispute are you seeing?

Water rights, pollution laws, noise laws, etc. Basically anything that crosses the jurisdiction lines and the two jurisdictions are not willing to back down on.

Your basic property line dispute goes back to the dawn of agriculture and can cause multiple generations of bad will. Weather or erosion can cause a landmark to shift in location and then neighbors cannot agree on where the property line is supposed to be.

Nielas:
I never talked about speed limits. In both posts I talked about driving time limits.

Misread.

That's because there really are not that many jurisdiction compared to their size. In your scenario it seem that every city block or even every house could be considered a separate jurisdiction.

No, it has to do with the fact that their jurisdictions are set. It would be the same in my system.

Just look at water rights. Water easily crosses jurisdictions and if one jurisdiction decides that another is messing with their water supplies they will be furious.

And what would happen? It depends on the area and the jurisdictions involved. Just like NOW. Multiple city, county, state, federal and private jurisdictions overlap right now and they work it out.

Why can't a business in Austin just declare themselves a separate jurisdiction and ignore the ban? Or inversely, Austin declares that the land where your business is located is actually part of Austin and thus you are subject to the city ban.

Because that is not allowed in the current system (although a city could expand but it takes a while).

Water rights, pollution laws, noise laws, etc. Basically anything that crosses the jurisdiction lines and the two jurisdictions are not willing to back down on.

And those issues are not resolved now? Or at least dealt with.

Your basic property line dispute goes back to the dawn of agriculture and can cause multiple generations of bad will. Weather or erosion can cause a landmark to shift in location and then neighbors cannot agree on where the property line is supposed to be.

Except nowadays we have GPS's that can mark property down to the foot. In fact, recently several businesses have become a part of North Carolina (instead of South Carolina) due to the cartographers making a mistake over 100 years ago.

Technology is making many problems of the past obsolete.

LetalisK:
...I found it to be an incredibly cynical ideology. It sees government as a source of inefficiency, greed, corruption, waste, and any other number of synonyms to "bad".

My cure for that might simply be more cynicism, to be honest. I view corporate entities as sources of inefficiency, greed, corruption and waste. Especially because of their typically very short-term oriented thinking that leads to ultimately self-destructive - but short-term profitable - policies. Governments are often attacked because of their policy of "thinking from election to election", which I don't necessarily disagree with. But that's no reason to hand the reins over to a kid with ADHD and a sugar rush. Now, that's my view on deregulating today, of taking apart the system we have rather than fixing it. But what of the heralded society if it actually came to pass?

Honestly, we have seen what happens when industry is basically left to do what they want during the industrial revolution. People get murdered or simply killed through neglect, they are stuck in dead-end jobs of exploitation, slaving away until their coal-filled lungs give out. In the Libertarian society, a wealthy few would solidify their hold to the detriment of the vast majority of the society. Cartels and monopolies would ensure no competitors could rise because they would be crushed in their infancy. The developments regarding gap between rich and poor and the destruction of the middle class we face today are bad enough already, no need to make things worse there.

Perhaps I'm overexaggerating a bit in my descriptions there, but it's the basic sentiment at least.

Libertarianism ignores the best aspect of humanity - our ability to work together and co-operate and help each other. That's what gives humanity its strength. Libertarianism strikes me as an aloof selfishness - "I gots mine, so F-off". It seems very short-sighted as well - you may be fine now, but what about tomorrow? What happens when YOU need help?

Libertarians also think that they owe society nothing. That's wrong on so many levels. You depend on others, even if you don't realize it. All the technology around you, did you invent it? You depend on the police to keep you safe, you depend on the army or the emergency services to help you when disaster strikes, you drive on roads others built and you use a public water system that you certain did not make yourself. You NEED society. Don't believe me? March out into the wilderness for 10 years, all by yourself, and let's see how well you do.

Society makes their life better, government is necessary for the life they want, and yet they scream and yell when anyone asks for the slightest amount of money. It's ridiculous. Much of the time it just boils down to "Screw you, I ain't gonna pay, make me!"

There's also this atmosphere of arrogance that surrounds so many libertarians. "We can take care of OURSELVES!" - oh yeah? Really? Many of these libertarians aren't rich. What if they get struck down by Lymphoma? Or Leukaemia? Or anyone one of a plethora of illnesses that can strike anyone at anytime due to chance and genetics? What if your insurance won't cover it? Bet you'll be asking for help then.

Libertarianism also implies a level playing field. It implies that there are equal opportunities to get ahead. Now, I grew up a privileged life. I was privileged as all hell - two educated caring parents (you won't believe how many children don't grow up with that privilege), private schooling, a roof over my head, never going a single day hungry or thirsty, access to all the latest and greatest technology and educational opportunities my parents could afford (and they could afford plenty), growing up with pale skin due to my half-english heritage (and thus, avoiding all the racial abuse I saw some of my darker skin friends face) - but I understood, through SIMPLE OBSERVATION, that not everyone around me had such a nice life. That not everyone around me had the same privileges or started with the resources that I started with. Libertarianism assumes we all start from GO, but in reality, many of us Start off from Mayfair (that's Boardwalk for you Americans), while some are in Jail before the game begins. Others have to start on Old Kent Road (that's Mediterranean Avenue for you Americans) and have no dice.

The World isn't fair. I know that. Libertarians seem to think that's okay - well, I don't. I don't like that the world is unfair, and I think we should do stuff to fix it. I don't like seeing people suffer. Libertarians don't seem to mind. "I gots mine, screw you!" is a very, very, very dark and miserable world-view, that deprives one of the feelings of empathy and human kindness. I will never be a libertarian. I care. Sure, I've got a "bleeding" heart. It does bleed a little, when I see people miserable, and on their knees, and hopeless, and in need of help.

Actually, scratch that. I don't have a "bleeding" heart. I have a heart. Many Libertarians don't.

Korolev:
Libertarianism ignores the best aspect of humanity - our ability to work together and co-operate and help each other. That's what gives humanity its strength. Libertarianism strikes me as an aloof selfishness - "I gots mine, so F-off". It seems very short-sighted as well - you may be fine now, but what about tomorrow? What happens when YOU need help?

Libertarians also think that they owe society nothing. That's wrong on so many levels. You depend on others, even if you don't realize it. All the technology around you, did you invent it? You depend on the police to keep you safe, you depend on the army or the emergency services to help you when disaster strikes, you drive on roads others built and you use a public water system that you certain did not make yourself. You NEED society. Don't believe me? March out into the wilderness for 10 years, all by yourself, and let's see how well you do.

Society makes their life better, government is necessary for the life they want, and yet they scream and yell when anyone asks for the slightest amount of money. It's ridiculous. Much of the time it just boils down to "Screw you, I ain't gonna pay, make me!"

There's also this atmosphere of arrogance that surrounds so many libertarians. "We can take care of OURSELVES!" - oh yeah? Really? Many of these libertarians aren't rich. What if they get struck down by Lymphoma? Or Leukaemia? Or anyone one of a plethora of illnesses that can strike anyone at anytime due to chance and genetics? What if your insurance won't cover it? Bet you'll be asking for help then.

Libertarianism also implies a level playing field. It implies that there are equal opportunities to get ahead. Now, I grew up a privileged life. I was privileged as all hell - two educated caring parents (you won't believe how many children don't grow up with that privilege), private schooling, a roof over my head, never going a single day hungry or thirsty, access to all the latest and greatest technology and educational opportunities my parents could afford (and they could afford plenty), growing up with pale skin due to my half-english heritage (and thus, avoiding all the racial abuse I saw some of my darker skin friends face) - but I understood, through SIMPLE OBSERVATION, that not everyone around me had such a nice life. That not everyone around me had the same privileges or started with the resources that I started with. Libertarianism assumes we all start from GO, but in reality, many of us Start off from Mayfair (that's Boardwalk for you Americans), while some are in Jail before the game begins. Others have to start on Old Kent Road (that's Mediterranean Avenue for you Americans) and have no dice.

The World isn't fair. I know that. Libertarians seem to think that's okay - well, I don't. I don't like that the world is unfair, and I think we should do stuff to fix it. I don't like seeing people suffer. Libertarians don't seem to mind. "I gots mine, screw you!" is a very, very, very dark and miserable world-view, that deprives one of the feelings of empathy and human kindness. I will never be a libertarian. I care. Sure, I've got a "bleeding" heart. It does bleed a little, when I see people miserable, and on their knees, and hopeless, and in need of help.

Actually, scratch that. I don't have a "bleeding" heart. I have a heart. Many Libertarians don't.

Thank you for informing me what my ideology believes. I will be sure to adjust my thinking posthaste.

You are making the same mistake people like Paul Rand make by assuming objectivism and libertarianism are the same thing, when Ayn Rand the mother of that particular philosophy said they are not. She rejected all non-objectivist libertarians.

BUt seriously, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism you need to read this. And maybe peruse this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarianism_by_form .

However I will try to break it down for you here as well.

To your point that libertarians ignore the fact that we work together best as a group, you're wrong. While it is true that one of the core principles of Libertarianism is that the most important things are individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association, that it no way leads to 'I've got mine, f-off.". That is again an OBJECTIVIST viewpoint. The basis of the Libertarian viewpoint is more that the group, the town, the city, the state, everything, is made up of individuals, and that by ensuring the most freedom and happiness for the individual, the larger whole is in turn made better.

It's not about telling people to sod off, it's about telling people that they have the right to do whatever they will, as long as they're willing to accept the consequences of doing whatever they will. They can associate with whomever they want, as long as they are wiling to live with the consequences.

On of the reasons I like Libertarianism is because it's, as far as I can tell, the only political philosophy that treats human beings like they should be allowed to make their own decisions AND be responsible for those decisions.

Your second paragraph is again, not about libertarians but objectivist. We absolutely need society. But society is made up of individuals, again, going back to the idea of the individual as the basic building block of every human endeavor. What I believe as a libertarian is that individuals have the right to separate from society on their own, and associate with society on their own. That it's ultimately up to the individual to decide who they associate with, and that any coercion to belong to a society against ones will is moralistically wrong. Hermits are a thing that should be allowed to be if they so choose. There are very few libertarian philosophies that believe we should get rid of all social services and state governance, mostly the anarchist and objectivist branches.

I pay my taxes because I've agreed to associate with the society, and in turn benefit from the society. That being said, can you not kind of understand why people might dislike paying taxes if those taxes are then being spent to do things they disagree with on a moralistic level? You do realize taxes ALSO pay for our military, and many libertarians, including myself, are non-interventionist. We have no saying in where our taxes go, and if they're going to intervening in foreign countries or maintaining presence in foreign countries, yeah, we don't like that.

And again, what your arguing against is Objectivist-libertarians, a single branch of libertarianism.

Same with the medical paragraph. Remember what I said about the individual being the basic building block of everything? It's very hard for an individual to do that if they're dying. I and other libertarians of the same vein are for some form of very basic medical insurance coverage provided by the government with the ULTIMATE goal of getting someone back on their feet and working again, thus paying taxes and paying BACK what was spent to get them well again.

As for unfair, your right, the world is unfair, and in fact most if not all libertarians are well aware of it; what we're looking for is equality of opportunity. That's part of the whole 'making the individuals the best individuals they can be' thing. The important thing, is that we don't want to do this by lowering the top, but instead by increasing the bottom. Understand? We want everyone brought UP to a certain level without lowering the top, because it's unfair to punish accomplishment. It's also unfair to not give everyone the opportunity to accomplish.

So it's not a matter of 'we don't want the world to be fair', it's a matter of how we want it to change that you might disagree with, because what you're actually talking about is again, objectivism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding-heart_libertarianism Oh irony.

And of course things change over time; fourty years ago I would've been a Nixonian republican, prior to the moral majority highjacking the republican party and turning it into the GOP we have today.

Bentusi16:

I pay my taxes because I've agreed to associate with the society, and in turn benefit from the society.

You also pay them because you have to, though. And, if we didn't have to, then the wealthy would inevitably opt out, and our hospitals and roads would all go to shit.

The poor need the services the most, but have the least ability to pay. The tax system you're implying above seems to be relying on the altruism of the wealthy, which is... well, never a safe bet, to put it lightly.

Bentusi16:
That being said, can you not kind of understand why people might dislike paying taxes if those taxes are then being spent to do things they disagree with on a moralistic level? You do realize taxes ALSO pay for our military, and many libertarians, including myself, are non-interventionist. We have no saying in where our taxes go, and if they're going to intervening in foreign countries or maintaining presence in foreign countries, yeah, we don't like that.

This is a very good point. I may disagree with Libertarianism, but I recognise this is a good argument in its favour.

Bentusi16:

As for unfair, your right, the world is unfair, and in fact most if not all libertarians are well aware of it; what we're looking for is equality of opportunity. That's part of the whole 'making the individuals the best individuals they can be' thing. The important thing, is that we don't want to do this by lowering the top, but instead by increasing the bottom. Understand? We want everyone brought UP to a certain level without lowering the top, because it's unfair to punish accomplishment. It's also unfair to not give everyone the opportunity to accomplish.

Careful with using the word "accomplishment", there-- it doesn't truthfully apply to those who inherit, or even a great many who trip into success by luck of birth.

But, my main point would be this; giving the corporatists their freedom to run their businesses however they want is indirectly infringing on that equality of opportunity. They will discriminate, they will pollute, they will withhold pensions, and they will provide only the barest minimum of a standard of safety (for the sake of the revenue lost from a dying worker, rather than the moral considerations).

My main tiff with Libertarianism has always been that, it seems to me, they greatly underestimate the impact of money on equality of opportunity. The economics of birth decide so much about somebody's chances.

I desire to work in an industry i personally think needs MORE government control. I think regulation on the medical industry currently is woeful and removing what little there is will kill people simple as that. Currently the LACK of regulation has killed people so i reject the idea that removing all of it will stop the deaths. Its been proven again and again that some pharmaceutical companies dont want to help doctors or patients they want to sell. Even if it could, and does, cost lives. Theres blood and pain on lazy hands in the industry and it disgusts me, someone needs to be able to come in and financially cripple companies who let people suffer and die for profit or sometimes even to maintain "image". Socially I agree totally with libertarianism sure, but some structures i think need some over arching regulation. Well ill go as far to say i KNOW they do to prevent deaths in a practical way.

Not to mention in the medical industry the government is proven statistically to be more trustworthy than the companies. Theres very little debate to be had on this, the statistics clearly and consistently show that company funded tests are ludicrously bias compared to government funded ones. Laughably so.

Other. In my experience, almost all libertarians completely disregard the concept of rights for the minority. They wouldn't admit it, but with most libertarians I've argued and/or debated with, I've pigeonholed them into a corner where they basically stated they would oppose genocide of a minority people-group, but wouldn't do anything to have the government to stop it, particularly if its what the majority wanted. Libertarians tend to, in my experience, completely disregard individual liberty. Quite ironic, no? Most are anti-big government, not pro-liberty. Most politicians in the US claiming to be "libertarians", like Ron and Rand Paul, tend to completely disregard the rights of minorities, so I don't consider them actual libertarians. No you don't "let the states decide" on matters of abortion and gay marriage, for the same reason you don't "let the states decide" on slavery.

All that being said, I like the ideals, not perfect, particularly lack of government oversight in private industry (oversight, not interference), but generally better than Democrat and way, way better than Republican. Its the people who claim to be libertarians that are the problem, IMO. I've not found many libertarians that weren't heterosexual cis white Christian or Atheist men, which is just my point.

I like their social ideas of freedom but their idea of a free market seems like one where ceos could make 700,000,000 a year while their worker makes 1 dollar an hour.
I'm more of a liberal myself, I like welfare and business regulations but I also like freedom.
And I don't like big business buying all of the US politician votes so I guess I'd be independent.

My views are closest to the green party followed by the democrats.

MarsAtlas:
Other. In my experience, almost all libertarians completely disregard the concept of rights for the minority. They wouldn't admit it, but with most libertarians I've argued and/or debated with, I've pigeonholed them into a corner where they basically stated they would oppose genocide of a minority people-group, but wouldn't do anything to have the government to stop it, particularly if its what the majority wanted. Libertarians tend to, in my experience, completely disregard individual liberty. Quite ironic, no? Most are anti-big government, not pro-liberty. Most politicians in the US claiming to be "libertarians", like Ron and Rand Paul, tend to completely disregard the rights of minorities, so I don't consider them actual libertarians. No you don't "let the states decide" on matters of abortion and gay marriage, for the same reason you don't "let the states decide" on slavery.

It would be nice if we could have some examples (if only we could consider them credible, but still). How do they disregard individual liberty? And where you talk about genocide, there's a lot more to that issue than you're making it out to be. Furthermore, abortion is fairly murky water and marriage has to be defined.

MarsAtlas:
Its the people who claim to be libertarians that are the problem, IMO. I've not found many libertarians that weren't heterosexual cis white Christian or Atheist men, which is just my point.

That may have something to do with minorities being convinced that fiscal policy and individual liberty are really just patriarchal white-man talk to preserve racism, discrimination and further control the majority by the racist, bigoted, sexist groups and individuals that talk dichotomy like this and create class war.

AgedGrunt:

That may have something to do with minorities being convinced that fiscal policy and individual liberty are really just patriarchal white-man talk to preserve racism, discrimination and further control the majority by the racist, bigoted, sexist groups and individuals that talk dichotomy like this and create class war.

Even if so, such conviction most likely did not just pop into existance out of thin air without any reason whatsoever. And, well, again just from conversations, it does tend to look that libertarians often say "individual liberty" when they mean "my liberty".

Now I get people don't like "the government interfering with everything they do" but if the government interference suddenly disappeared from every sphere libertarians don't want it in, I'm sure that vacuum wouldn't lead to a better society for everyone...

farson135:

Nielas:
I never talked about speed limits. In both posts I talked about driving time limits.

Misread.

That's because there really are not that many jurisdiction compared to their size. In your scenario it seem that every city block or even every house could be considered a separate jurisdiction.

No, it has to do with the fact that their jurisdictions are set. It would be the same in my system.

Just look at water rights. Water easily crosses jurisdictions and if one jurisdiction decides that another is messing with their water supplies they will be furious.

And what would happen? It depends on the area and the jurisdictions involved. Just like NOW. Multiple city, county, state, federal and private jurisdictions overlap right now and they work it out.

Why can't a business in Austin just declare themselves a separate jurisdiction and ignore the ban? Or inversely, Austin declares that the land where your business is located is actually part of Austin and thus you are subject to the city ban.

Because that is not allowed in the current system (although a city could expand but it takes a while).

Water rights, pollution laws, noise laws, etc. Basically anything that crosses the jurisdiction lines and the two jurisdictions are not willing to back down on.

And those issues are not resolved now? Or at least dealt with.

Your basic property line dispute goes back to the dawn of agriculture and can cause multiple generations of bad will. Weather or erosion can cause a landmark to shift in location and then neighbors cannot agree on where the property line is supposed to be.

Except nowadays we have GPS's that can mark property down to the foot. In fact, recently several businesses have become a part of North Carolina (instead of South Carolina) due to the cartographers making a mistake over 100 years ago.

Technology is making many problems of the past obsolete.

I find the system you are proposing to be academically fascinating but I have concluded that I don't really understand the setup you are proposing and I am getting confused as a result.

Who gets to create a "government without space" and is participation in any one of these governments purely voluntary? If I do not like the rules my current "government without space" has, can I shop around for one I prefer and then ignore my old one? Who is the arbiter of any disputes between these governments?

Vegosiux:
Even if so, such conviction most likely did not just pop into existance out of thin air without any reason whatsoever. And, well, again just from conversations, it does tend to look that libertarians often say "individual liberty" when they mean "my liberty".

Now I get people don't like "the government interfering with everything they do" but if the government interference suddenly disappeared from every sphere libertarians don't want it in, I'm sure that vacuum wouldn't lead to a better society for everyone...

People are individuals and speak for themselves. If there is a self-centered undertone, it's probably for that reason, but don't infer that libertarians only look out for themselves (or that such instinct is even unique).

Furthermore, libertarians are like any other "group"; they're not all in agreement. I'd actually compare it to Atheism: everyone is a libertarian to a degree, some just take it further than others.

AgedGrunt:

People are individuals and speak for themselves. If there is a self-centered undertone, it's probably for that reason, but don't infer that libertarians only look out for themselves (or that such instinct is even unique).

Self-interest is a rather real thing I believe, down to survival instincts. But the thing that's cloudy here is "only myself", "myself first, the rest after, maybe" and "society as a whole" as priorities...it's a whole spectrum. Especially in that middle bit.

Pure individualism seems to me as a reactionary counter to pure collectivism, and communism as we know it didn't even go for pure collectivism, there were still powerful individuals, exceedingly so, actually, in communist states.

Now, take this with a grain of salt (hyperbole/metaphor inc), but I think Stalin was quite a libertarian - he would stop at nothing to ensure he would hold the power. He put his individual priorities and desires of expanding his personal, individual sphere of influence so far above any others' interests that calling him a "communist" is an insult not to communism, but to common sense. He didn't care one bit about the collective, it was all about him, his liberties, his power. Individualism in its purest form.

Furthermore, libertarians are like any other "group"; they're not all in agreement. I'd actually compare it to Atheism: everyone is a libertarian to a degree, some just take it further than others.

A rather good point, actually.

Nielas:
Who gets to create a "government without space"

Any citizen old enough to understand what they are doing.

is participation in any one of these governments purely voluntary?

Yes (or no depending on the person but generally yes). If you are fine with having none of the "advantages" of a "government without space" then go for it.

If I do not like the rules my current "government without space" has, can I shop around for one I prefer and then ignore my old one?

Yes, within certain limits. Those limits can vary but you can imagine the basics as being like a cell phone plan. So you do not get to opt out the day before tax day (if applicable). You have to wait until your "plan" is over.

Who is the arbiter of any disputes between these governments?

It depends on whether you are dealing with a 2 or 3 tiered system and what the dispute is but generally you can say that the Federal Government will handle those disputes.

I am a "Realistic" Libertarian. I understand that things such as Health and Safety Regulations, Minimum Wage, and Education Standards are a necessity for any society (As well as the standard Police/military), but there are many, many, many things the government should not be involved in, and should be left to the free market. I also believe our government is becoming way to big (The Military is a prime example of that), and that people should be allowed to live their lives peacefully and privately.

While I hesitate to place myself in any set political delineations (I personally detest the party system), I suppose I do identify most with Libertarians.

As far as economic policy goes, wealth distribution is a mess under any system, because human nature is a thing.

afroebob:
uphold liberty as the highest political end

afroebob:
so long as nobody is hurt

Well, as a starting point, this works.

It's a fundamentally naive philosophy. You can't give people freedom from the government whilst simultaneously expecting that people will stay safe and protected. The same institutions you want to dismantle are the things that are currently keeping you safe.

Or, what, do you just want to get rid of all the government institutions that require inconvenience or responsibility on your part, whilst keeping those that you like?

afroebob:
On the economic side, the believe in a system of little government interference.

And as if you guys couldn't get any more idealistic, you seem to think that all of this is going to happen in a free market.

So, basically, we're looking at;

Some hyper-capitalist supply-and-demand society that has as little government regulation as possible yet still somehow avoids people getting hurt.

This isn't a political stance, it's a fantastical utopia.

You can't seriously expect all of these things to work together.

afroebob:
They also believe in lowing taxes and reducing government spending.

afroebob:
so long as nobody is hurt

Are you guys for real?

These are mutually exclusive - if you want guaranteed safety, taxes are non-negotiable. The organisations that guarantee every citizen a basic standard of living, no matter their circumstances, require a treasury built on taxes.

It's genuinely the only (relatively) trustworthy way to maintain that minimum standard of living. The relatively wealthy pay a frankly small amount of money so that the relatively desperate can survive.

But, let me guess, private corporations will just pick up all that slack, right?

Democratic governments are interested in your votes and your taxes, and that's what keeps them trustworthy. Private corporations are interested in their own profit, and you can't trust them to maintain minimum standard of living - there's nothing in that for them.

You can't claim to want to keep 'some' government interaction whilst also dismantling as much of the government as you can, and emptying the treasury of whatever remains. That's not how it works.

afroebob:
It is the only political party that exists in the United States that actually believes in freedom rather than just says it does.

And here's my serious, genuine problem with libertarianism; you actually believe the whole 'muh freedoms' rhetoric.

Humans are not free. They have never been free. Every single civilised human relies on other human beings to survive. We are all totally reliant on each other. Government is a very big part of that, but it's just on the top end of a society that is the same all the way down.

Everything you do, everything you use, everything you eat and drink is provided for by another human. If you want to live in a civilisation, then you are completely, inarguably tied to the rest of society. We are all responsible for each other, and we are all a burden on each other. You can't be 'free' from interference, because that interference is what's keeping you clothed and fed.

We are one, big nation, one big organism of people protecting and feeding each other. That requires massive amounts of administration. That requires a government. If you want to be free from the government, then you can't expect to be a part of that organism. You can't just take without giving. You can't have independence and guaranteed safety. You can't be protected by institutions that have no control and no money.

Sure, a lot of government is tied up in bureaucracy, but at it's core, it's all necessary.

'True American Freedom' is a myth. It's all relative - freedom by degrees. You can be 'more free', but 'absolute freedom itself' is not a real goal in a civilised world. Libertarianism just takes the reins out of the government's hands, and passes it on to private businesses. Choosing your own master isn't freedom.

The Lyre:
It's a fundamentally naive philosophy. You can't give people freedom from the government whilst simultaneously expecting that people will stay safe and protected. The same institutions you want to dismantle are the things that are currently keeping you safe.

So let me get this straight, our wish to prevent the police from abusing their power will cause the police to be ineffective?

Police murder innocent people and Libertarians want them to be held accountable for it. Do you support the power of the government to murder its own citizens without recourse?

This isn't a political stance, it's a fantastical utopia.

Prove it.

You can't seriously expect all of these things to work together.

Why not?

These are mutually exclusive - if you want guaranteed safety, taxes are non-negotiable. The organisations that guarantee every citizen a basic standard of living, no matter their circumstances, require a treasury built on taxes.

Which requires taxes to remain at exactly the same level because?

But, let me guess, private corporations will just pick up all that slack, right?

Our standard of living is built on the backs of human production and ingenuity.

Democratic governments are interested in your votes and your taxes, and that's what keeps them trustworthy.

Except all of those times that they are not trustworthy. You know, like the current NSA fiasco.

Private corporations are interested in their own profit, and you can't trust them to maintain minimum standard of living - there's nothing in that for them.

Yes there is. No people to work, nothing to make. No people to buy, no profit.

You can't claim to want to keep 'some' government interaction whilst also dismantling as much of the government as you can, and emptying the treasury of whatever remains. That's not how it works.

Why? Are you trying to argue that the US government is so fragile that it cannot possibly exist without a massive military that dwarfs all other militaries on earth? No? The apparently you agree that there is room for cutting.

Humans are not free. They have never been free. Every single civilised human relies on other human beings to survive. We are all totally reliant on each other.

Maybe you are. But human beings also should have the ability to function on their own. If not, then they are useless. A drone may be useful in a bee hive but in a human society a drone is simply wasted space.

Everything you do, everything you use, everything you eat and drink is provided for by another human.

Just because you suck on someone else's teat for everything does not mean we all do. I regularly make my own food (my family is made up of farmers and I am a hunter). I am also a gunsmith and along with that I have experience in carpentry and welding. Basically, I make many of my own tools, furniture, etc. I provide many of my own materials. And on.

I trade for everything else that I need. So it is my work that gets what I need.

You can't be 'free' from interference, because that interference is what's keeping you clothed and fed.

So the only way for society to function is to have your police officers kill innocent people. Wow.

You continue to attack everything we seek to do. Yet, I have a distinct feeling that you have no idea what we actually want to do.

Sure, a lot of government is tied up in bureaucracy, but at it's core, it's all necessary.

So let me get this straight, no matter how much idiotic bureaucracy exists we cannot complain about it because it is all 100% necessary. All of it. No question. Right?

Libertarianism just takes the reins out of the government's hands, and passes it on to private businesses. Choosing your own master isn't freedom.

Which is why Libertarians do not put freedom in the hands of private businesses. They put it in the hands of the people.

You have a fundamental misunderstand of what Libertarianism entails. Your government feels that it has the right to deprive you of rights whenever it sees fit. That is not freedom. I do not give a flying fuck what you believe, you do not have the right to destroy me in the name of "saving" me. So stop trying to destroy me.

farson135:
Yes there is. No people to work, nothing to make. No people to buy, no profit.

Ah, another wonderful example of interpreting incentives incorrectly.

No people to work, nothing to make-- true! No people to buy the goods, no profit-- also... actually no, that isn't true. You can profit by doing things purely for yourself; you don't get pieces of paper that are representative of value out of it, but it is nonetheless profit. Maintaining a population costs far more than just one company's sales income (not even to mention profit)-- even if that company sold its product to everyone-- so there is no individual (or in this case business) incentive to actually care about keeping the population existing (at least not one that is not overridden by prohibitive costs.) You take advantage of the existing market demand and profit as much as possible from satisfying it. You do not concern yourself with making sure that the population grows and prospers-- unless you just arbitrarily want to do that more than you want to profit.

The thing of it is, other people can engage in trade and specialization that is to the mutual benefit of them and those they trade with. Trade is good. But what is even better than trade is just having everything for yourself-- civilization survives people starving in the streets just fine. Even if the pie is smaller, dividing it between less people or taking a larger share for yourself can be just as if not even more profitable than seeking purely to enlarge the pie-- especially when acting unilaterally.

So what you were responding to, farson135-- namely, this:

The Lyre:
Private corporations are interested in their own profit, and you can't trust them to maintain minimum standard of living - there's nothing in that for them.

It's not quite true, farson135. There isn't even nothing in it for them. There is actually less than nothing in it for them: the costs exceed any potential benefits.

Take the famous example of Henry Ford paying his workers enough so that they could all buy one of the cars that they helped to make. Sounds nice, right? But please show me the (clearly very clever) math that indicates that this would be more profitable than paying his workers next to nothing (assuming they would still work.)

So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none-- outstanding! My profit from paying my workers more is..? Labor costs increase by enough for workers to afford the price of one car each. The material cost (steel or aluminum and plastic and so on) is of course deducted from the price when it comes to my own profit. So we have +PRICE-MATERIALCOST-PRICE. Or... the negative of the price of the materials used to make the car is my 'profit'. Ah, yes: my profit is less than zero. Negative. Wonderful!

Is it in Henry Ford's interest to pay enough for workers to afford his car, or is that a statement aimed at public relations? Arithmetic seems to indicate the latter. You can still be profitable paying a livable wage, of course. But maximal profitability only allows for paying workers what they demand. It is workers (or the government that represents them, potentially) that must demand a higher wage, not employers that should be expected to be so generous as to simply throw more money at them because they need a market for their goods.

The only significant reason to pay workers more-- aside from a generosity that doesn't mind cutting into profit-- is because workers won't work for less or there is some other circumstance forcing the wage increase (a boycott or government intervention or whatever else.) The reason for this is that there is no universe in which paying people enough to buy your product only for the sales increase makes any mathematical sense. When you increase a worker's wage enough for him to buy your product, and he does so, this has cost you the price of your product for a return of less than the price of your product (unless your product has only that individual's labor as the sole input-- in which case you should break even-- and if his labor is the sole input, what the hell does he need an employer for anyway?)

No, the best way for a business to approach the situation of absolute freedom is to let others suffer the delusion that paying workers more by itself increases profits and take advantage of the market that they create. Or if they will not do so, then let people starve and divide up what is left between an ever smaller group.

farson135:

So let me get this straight, our wish to prevent the police from abusing their power will cause the police to be ineffective?

Strawman and you know it.

Police murder innocent people and Libertarians want them to be held accountable for it. Do you support the power of the government to murder its own citizens without recourse?

Strawman and you know it.

Except all of those times that they are not trustworthy. You know, like the current NSA fiasco.

You think private business won't gather information on you? Right now, they use information they have on you to target you with advertisements. Give them power to decide things that affect the general quality of life across the board? Yeah, I can't see how they could possibly try to keep a tight grip on the people, sneer sneer.

Yes there is. No people to work, nothing to make. No people to buy, no profit.

I'm sorry, the argument was about "providing a minimum standard of living". Well, I suppose technically "being kept alive" is the strictest minimum possible, and yes, I'm pretty sure that's something a private business would have vested interest in providing for its minions, but something tells me such a standard would provide for a rather bleak existance.

Why? Are you trying to argue that the US government is so fragile that it cannot possibly exist without a massive military that dwarfs all other militaries on earth? No? The apparently you agree that there is room for cutting.

Strawman and you know it.

Maybe you are. But human beings also should have the ability to function on their own. If not, then they are useless. A drone may be useful in a bee hive but in a human society a drone is simply wasted space.

Prove it.

Just because you suck on someone else's teat for everything does not mean we all do.

Do not for a second think anyone believes you meant this "you" as anything other than a direct insult, farson.

I regularly make my own food (my family is made up of farmers and I am a hunter). I am also a gunsmith and along with that I have experience in carpentry and welding. Basically, I make many of my own tools, furniture, etc. I provide many of my own materials. And on.

I trade for everything else that I need. So it is my work that gets what I need.

No, other people having what you need and being willing to exchange it for what you can give them is what gets you what you need. You depend on other people both a) to have what you need and b) to be willing to part with it for your sake. There are two parties to a trade, and they're mutually dependant in order for trade to work.

Or maybe you trade with some intangible cosmic forces that just drop stuff on your porch because you work, or something. I don't know. Would be neat if it worked that way tho.

So the only way for society to function is to have your police officers kill innocent people. Wow.

Strawman and you know it.

You continue to attack everything we seek to do. Yet, I have a distinct feeling that you have no idea what we actually want to do.

If libertarians in general sport this kind of attitude, whatever you "actually want to do" can't possibly be good. Specially with that "waste of space" talk from earlier in this post, that came across as more than little disturbing.

So let me get this straight, no matter how much idiotic bureaucracy exists we cannot complain about it because it is all 100% necessary. All of it. No question. Right?

Strawman and you know it.

Which is why Libertarians do not put freedom in the hands of private businesses. They put it in the hands of the people.

Prove it.

No, don't prove "that's what we want to stand for". Prove that "this is how it will actually work".

You have a fundamental misunderstand of what Libertarianism entails. Your government feels that it has the right to deprive you of rights whenever it sees fit.

Set up a better political system instead of whining about the government. If you keep electing those people even with single-digit approval ratings, all they're guilty of is taking advantage of the foolishness of others. Something, I might add, your glorious private businesses are most certainly not above.

I do not give a flying fuck what you believe, you do not have the right to destroy me in the name of "saving" me. So stop trying to destroy me.

I think you're overestimating your own importance if you seriously think that some random person on the internet actively wants to "destroy you". Or "save you", for that matter; especially with that attitude.

I disagree with Libertarianism for the same reason that I disagree with all major political philosophies- they can only ever offer one solution. Ask a Liberal, it should be the government that sells peas. Ask a Libertarian, it should be freewheeling enterprise that builds roads with no oversight. They're all just too simplistic for the way things actually work. In reality, you need a complicated balance of freedom and security in order to thrive. Personal security (laws and borders) versus personal freedom (speech, travel, etc.). Economic security (wages, public sector work, social safety nets) versus economic freedom (free enterprise).

You can't support one without the other, and that's the failing of most people to realize honestly. You can have universal healthcare, but you need a strong economy (overall) to make it work. You can have a bustling, creative market, but you need a ton of oversight or people are selling paint chip cheeseburgers for fifty bars of gold-pressed latinum. You can trade for food and goods while enjoying a modern life, but only because of a ton of government research and private investment. Nothing works by itself, everything has to work together to give us the best of everything.

Norithics:
all major political philosophies........................Ask a Liberal, it should be the government that sells peas.

LO

....l.

Seriously? Liberals became socialists? Since when?

Replace Libertarian with Liberal, then Libertarian with Socialist, and Remove Libertarian from the picture and you have major political philosophy. America is not, by any strech a correct representation of the political philosophies. First of all it lacks representation entirely for many major ideologies, and SECOND. It has all the names screwed up.

Libertarianism is just Liberalism taken to an extreme.

Nikolaz72:
Seriously? Liberals became socialists? Since when?
Replace Libertarian with Liberal, then Libertarian with Socialist, and Remove Libertarian from the picture and you have major political philosophy. America is not, by any strech a correct representation of the political philosophies. First of all it lacks representation entirely for many major ideologies, and SECOND. It has all the names screwed up.

Alright, then. I accept that my throwaway caricature of that particular set of labels didn't exactly fit. Now that that's settled, anything else to add?

Norithics:

Nikolaz72:
Seriously? Liberals became socialists? Since when?
Replace Libertarian with Liberal, then Libertarian with Socialist, and Remove Libertarian from the picture and you have major political philosophy. America is not, by any strech a correct representation of the political philosophies. First of all it lacks representation entirely for many major ideologies, and SECOND. It has all the names screwed up.

Alright, then. I accept that my throwaway caricature of that particular set of labels didn't exactly fit. Now that that's settled, anything else to add?

I'm annoyed that Americans keep mixing Socialism and Liberalism up?

I'm annoyed that they invent new words for things because they don't want to be associated with the new meaning of a word they changed the meaning of?

Actually, the American rightwing should just stop calling their Moderates - Socialists period. Its as if they don't know what socialism is other than (something about healthcare and .... taxes certainly)

I just wanted to have an angry rant. If the American Standards begins to be called Deeply Philosophical instead of being recognized as the deformed Populist Pseudo-Ideological terms that they have become, not really being a clear sign of 'what' anyone prescribing to their ideologies believes in but rather just two different colours like blue and red so that people can bitch at each other without knowing jack about politics.

Nikolaz72:
I'm annoyed that Americans keep mixing Socialism and Liberalism up?

I'm annoyed that they invent new words for things because they don't want to be associated with the new meaning of a word they changed the meaning of?

If you're in the mood to irritate yourself into a singularity of eye-popping frustration, just look at our history around the time the Dixiecrats became a thing. The amount of political musical chairs that resulted from that was legendary, and may explain in some small way why it's so hard for even those who pay attention to have our papers in order.

Norithics:

Nikolaz72:
I'm annoyed that Americans keep mixing Socialism and Liberalism up?

I'm annoyed that they invent new words for things because they don't want to be associated with the new meaning of a word they changed the meaning of?

If you're in the mood to irritate yourself into a singularity of eye-popping frustration, just look at our history around the time the Dixiecrats became a thing. The amount of political musical chairs that resulted from that was legendary, and may explain in some small way why it's so hard for even those who pay attention to have our papers in order.

Ah well.... Its not really a massive irritation, its just a lot small irritations ever time its seen.

Like scrolling down through the forum and seeing it feels like a small electrical charge to the back of the head.

Also - Welcome to the Escapist. Remember to read the rules of conduct, would be a shame if you ended up with a warning for low content or something before you learn that posting a picture with a thousand words on it is still considered to be low content posting. Or a suspension if you called a troll out for trolling.

Nikolaz72:
That being said though. It wouldn't exactly be 'hard' to start using proper terms. It would confuse Americans for year or two, but it would make it so much easier for the entire world for a millennium or centuries or however long the U.S plans on sticking around.

I... don't disagree with you, but historical precedent for us adopting things that are way easier than what we've got is spotty at best. I wouldn't hazard your health by telling you to hold your breath on that one; in all likelihood, we'll probably adopt something even weirder/dumber/more unwieldy.

Also - Welcome to the Escapist. Remember to read the rules of conduct, would be a shame if you ended up with a warning for low content or something before you learn that posting a picture with a thousand words on it is still considered to be low content posting. Or a suspension if you called a troll out for trolling.

Thanks! I'll... do my best. I think.

Seanchaidh:
No people to work, nothing to make-- true! No people to buy the goods, no profit-- also... actually no, that isn't true. You can profit by doing things purely for yourself; you don't get pieces of paper that are representative of value out of it, but it is nonetheless profit. Maintaining a population costs far more than just one company's sales income (not even to mention profit)-- even if that company sold its product to everyone-- so there is no individual (or in this case business) incentive to actually care about keeping the population existing (at least not one that is not overridden by prohibitive costs.) You take advantage of the existing market demand and profit as much as possible from satisfying it. You do not concern yourself with making sure that the population grows and prospers-- unless you just arbitrarily want to do that more than you want to profit.

Bullshit. If no one buys your product then you cannot make a profit. That is the purpose of business.

It's not quite true, farson135. There isn't even nothing in it for them. There is actually less than nothing in it for them: the costs exceed any potential benefits.

Prove it.

This is a basic economic principle. The better off the civilization the more the people can buy. Americans can buy more because we are well off.

Take the famous example of Henry Ford paying his workers enough so that they could all buy one of the cars that they helped to make. Sounds nice, right? But please show me the (clearly very clever) math that indicates that this would be more profitable than paying his workers next to nothing (assuming they would still work.)

Don't need math. The profitability comes from ensuring that people know about the cars. Making a device popular requires exposure. Back in the day, there were no TVs and no internet.

So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none-- outstanding! My profit from paying my workers more is..?

So let me get this straight, you are only selling to your workers and no one else. Your workers are forced to buy from you and no one else. What is this a plantation? Your model sucks.

Labor costs increase by enough for workers to afford the price of one car each. The material cost (steel or aluminum and plastic and so on) is of course deducted from the price when it comes to my own profit. So we have +PRICE-MATERIALCOST-PRICE. Or... the negative of the price of the materials used to make the car is my 'profit'. Ah, yes: my profit is less than zero. Negative. Wonderful!

Assuming you sell to no one else. Only an idiot would do that.

It is workers (or the government that represents them, potentially) that must demand a higher wage

Duh.

not employers that should be expected to be so generous as to simply throw more money at them because they need a market for their goods.

Wow. You have failed to understand my point on a level not seen since Blablahb graced us with his presence. Dear god in heaven, I have no idea where you came up with your notion but I have to tell you that was bad. Just awful. Go away, and stop talking because anything you have to say will tainted by how bad that previous post was.

Vegosiux:
Strawman and you know it.

Yes I do know it. I also know that the previous posted attacked ANY attempt we make to have some sort of change in our society. I know he does not believe what he typed and I am pointing it out to him. Context is important and that context is clear in my post.

You think private business won't gather information on you?

By my choice? Yes. Against my will in the name of arresting me? No. Big difference.

I'm sorry, the argument was about "providing a minimum standard of living". Well, I suppose technically "being kept alive" is the strictest minimum possible, and yes, I'm pretty sure that's something a private business would have vested interest in providing for its minions, but something tells me such a standard would provide for a rather bleak existance.

Really? Care to prove that?

Businesses have a vested interest in ensuring that their workers remain happy. Hell, they might unionize and fuck over the entire business. That is, unless the government comes in and breaks up the strike. The Free Market would never do that.

Prove it.

Give me one job that can be done without thinking at all. Then give me an employer who wants an employee who cannot do anything without instructions.

Do not for a second think anyone believes you meant this "you" as anything other than a direct insult, farson.

If you want to live that life then go for it. Personally I think it is disgusting. That is a moral choice. Take it as an insult or acknowledge it as your way of life. It is no matter to me. You are you. Just as long as you do not force me to live your life I do not give a shit.

No, other people having what you need and being willing to exchange it for what you can give them is what gets you what you need. You depend on other people both a) to have what you need and b) to be willing to part with it for your sake. There are two parties to a trade, and they're mutually dependant in order for trade to work.

Or maybe you trade with some intangible cosmic forces that just drop stuff on your porch because you work, or something. I don't know. Would be neat if it worked that way tho.

Or maybe, you are missing the point. His argument is that, "everything you do, everything you use, everything you eat and drink is provided for by another human." Which is fucking wrong. Try and follow what the other person wrote before you attack me over irrelevant points.

If libertarians in general sport this kind of attitude, whatever you "actually want to do" can't possibly be good.

Most of my "attitude" is made up by you. I know we have had dealings in the past but you need to just let it go and calm the fuck down.

Specially with that "waste of space" talk from earlier in this post, that came across as more than little disturbing.

Because never in your life have you said that a person is useless in what you are doing. You have never had a school project with a member who tried to leach a grade off of you. Never would you call that person a waste or similar.

Prove it.

No, don't prove "that's what we want to stand for". Prove that "this is how it will actually work".

Businesses has no control over the government therefore they cannot affect freedom. However, the government is limited which puts the freedom in the hands of....the people. Simple.

Set up a better political system instead of whining about the government.

I am trying. But you guys want to stop us at every turn. You cut off our options and force us to go different routes. Don't attack me because you guys keep slowing us down.

If you keep electing those people even with single-digit approval ratings, all they're guilty of is taking advantage of the foolishness of others.

Which is why half (if not more) of my ballot is blank every time I vote. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

Something, I might add, your glorious private businesses are most certainly not above.

Glorious? Sorry, business is a tool. There is nothing glorious about it. I do not worship business the way y'all worship government. Sorry, you do not get to use my motifs against me. I am far more complex than your idol worship.

I think you're overestimating your own importance if you seriously think that some random person on the internet actively wants to "destroy you". Or "save you", for that matter; especially with that attitude.

I think that you need to calm the fuck down and start reading what I say.

What did I say? You have attacked libertarians for trying to change things. One of those changes includes changes to the police and the way they deal with officers who murder innocent people. YOU demand that nothing change so that the police can continue to "save" me. At the same time you demand that they keep the possibility of "destroying" me. So you wish for the police to be able to "destroy" me in the name of "saving" me.

Do I need to spell it out further for you or can you work it out? Please, try and read what I write for once.

Kaulen Fuhs:
He must also, evidently, construct his own internet modems, and fuel them with his almighty power. I can't see how else he would have the ability to create and post this quaint little example of a misdirected hissy fit, unless he depended to some degree on the work of others.

I trade for it. They require my goods in order to survive. It is mutual. We are not parasites like the OP would like us to believe. Perhaps you should read my post before you accuse me of having a "hissy fit".

farson135:

Just because you suck on someone else's teat for everything does not mean we all do. I regularly make my own food (my family is made up of farmers and I am a hunter). I am also a gunsmith and along with that I have experience in carpentry and welding. Basically, I make many of my own tools, furniture, etc. I provide many of my own materials. And on.

I trade for everything else that I need. So it is my work that gets what I need.

-Do you cook all your food on an open fire you made yourself from twigs and leaves? If you cook your meals using an oven, or microwave, you rely on others to create and produce tools that you yourself cannot in order to maintain a set standard of 'good eating'.

-When you shit out that food, you presumably often do so into a toilet someone else made, into a sewer system that someone else maintains for you. You - I hope - then wash your hands with water that someone else keeps clean for you.

-Farmers rely on a market of buyers. People who produce for a living are especially reliant on other people to provide them fair compensation for their work.

-Do you make all of the components you use to create your own weapons for hunting? Did you make every single part? Or did you trade with someone else and make the tool from those pieces?

-Your 'trade' is paper with faces on it that we all collectively agree is worth something. Without society, your money is worthless.

-Even if you trade nothing but products for products, in every single case, you still rely on them to be able to make things you cannot, to continue your standard of living. It's a trade of services, trusting that you can help each other.

That's just a quick list off the top of my head. I'll readily admit that you're more self-sufficient than I am, but don't delude yourself. Even the populations of the animals you hunt are carefully monitored and preserved to ensure that there's enough for everyone to keep on eating for a long time.

No one is saying you don't earn your keep, or that you just take and take and take. But you do rely on others to provide things for you, and they in turn rely on you to provide things for them.

You are just as tied to other people as I am. Even if you were utterly self-sufficient, you'd still be taking from an environment that other people use, and you'd need to trust that they were okay with you living off of that land - if they weren't, they'd try to take it from you, and they'd outnumber you. We all have to 'trust' and rely on each other if we want to remain in a civilised world.

No one said you're a parasite - it's symbiosis, but social, symbiotic life forms are utterly reliant on each other to maintain their quality of life. You use parasite as an insult, but technically, a parasite has more freedom - it could always find another source of food, after all. We don't have anywhere near as many options as parasites.

Society, by necessity, requires individuals to sacrifice independence, form a group, and rely on others. Civilised humans do not have the luxury of real independence or freedom.

EDIT;

Before anyone asks - the relevance of the above is that many of the things we rely on fellow humans for are either;

Public officials and secret services might be controversial, but that is only one side of the government. Civil service is a large part of governing a country, and on the whole, they do a good enough, trustworthy enough job.

A) Duties taken on by the government, more often than not in a relatively professional, relatively trustworthy manner.

Again, these are not corrupt politicians or evil spies. These are cops, soldiers fire-fighters, paramedics, garbage men, sewer workers, or just your average office worker - ordinary people funded by the government, because no one else will pay people just to preserve our quality of life. PMCs and private security firms do this for a profit, not to 'protect and serve'.

B) Areas of society overseen by committees and tribunals commissioned by the government, in order to ensure a basic level of standards to protect the citizens of the country.

Again, more often than not, they do this in a relatively professional, relatively trustworthy manner. These jobs are done by ordinary, everyday people, working to help people for an often underwhelming salary.

You are not free from your government because you rely on them to save you from bad things. Sure, sure, you're a big bad tough guy, you even have two guns, you probably keep one on top of your pillow.

Oh, no, wait - guns aren't going to help you fight starvation and cholera. That's what your government is 'controlling' you for. That's what your government needs taxes for. They're far from perfect, but I'm far more likely to trust an idealistic civil servant than I am a self-serving CEO. At least the former pretends to care about me.

farson135:

Which is why Libertarians do not put freedom in the hands of private businesses. They put it in the hands of the people.

Thought I was done then I read this.

You do realise that private individuals are what make up private businesses, right?

The "hands of the people" are private individuals working for and running private businesses, who have no interest in preserving your quality of life - it's now what they're there for. They want to be successful, they aren't working for political, idealistic, altruistic reasons.

You can try putting civil service responsibilities in their hands, but they're just going to drop it.

The Lyre:
Do you cook all your food on an open fire you made yourself from twigs and leaves? If you cook your meals using an oven, or microwave, you rely on others to create and produce tools that you yourself cannot in order to maintain a set standard of 'good eating'.

Sometimes I do. When I don't, I trade for what I need. They need what I provide. It is a mutual exchange not parasitic.

When you shit out that food, you presumably often do so into a toilet someone else made, into a sewer system that someone else maintains for you.

Or into a hole I dug myself.

You - I hope - then wash your hands with water that someone else keeps clean for you.

Or I take it out of the well on my land.

Farmers rely on a market of buyers. People who produce for a living are especially reliant on other people to provide them fair compensation for their work.

So in other word you acknowledge the basic fact that people can provide things for themselves (like food) but we specialize in order to make more goods and then we trade those goods thus making a mutual relationship.

That is not what you said before. You argued that I could provide nothing for myself.

Do you make all of the components you use to create your own weapons for hunting?

Pretty much. Aside from the case and primers, the barrel, and the optics (I could make them but it would be irritating, time consuming, and in the case of the primers dangerous).

Your 'trade' is paper with faces on it that we all collectively agree is worth something. Without society, your money is worthless.

But my goods are still worth something. I do not need money to trade and I have traded with people many times without money. That is what the "Black and Yellow Pages" are for.

Even if you trade nothing but products for products, in every single case, you still rely on them to be able to make things you cannot, to continue your standard of living. It's a trade of services, trusting that you can help each other.

But not the parasitism you described in your post.

That's just a quick list off the top of my head. I'll readily admit that you're more self-sufficient than I am, but don't delude yourself. Even the populations of the animals you hunt are carefully monitored and preserved to ensure that there's enough for everyone to keep on eating for a long time.

Monitored by me. It is my land.

No one is saying you don't earn your keep, or that you just take and take and take. But you do rely on others to provide things for you, and they in turn rely on you to provide things for them.

Because we allow for specialization. Not because of necessity. I buy my clothes for convenience not because I cannot make them myself. I was pointing out the fact that your absolutism is a problem.

You are just as tied to other people as I am. Even if you were utterly self-sufficient, you'd still be taking from an environment that other people use

If other people are taking from my land then we have a problem.

No one said you're a parasite

You did. You argued that I cannot get anything without anyone else. I cannot even get the food I eat without someone to do it for me. That is parasitism.

it's symbiosis, but social, symbiotic life forms are utterly reliant on each other to maintain their quality of life.

That requires two separate species to work as one and one is whole and totally reliant on the other. Neither is the case. We humans existed without specialization for far longer than we had it.

You use parasite as an insult, but technically, a parasite has more freedom - it could always find another source of food, after all.

No it can't. Almost universally, they die once the host ejects them.

Also, living solely off of the life of another is nothing to aspire to.

Society, by necessity, requires individuals to sacrifice independence, form a group, and rely on others. Civilised humans do not have the luxury of real independence or freedom.

In your system perhaps. But I will never sacrifice my freedom so that you can pretend to be safer. An interaction between consenting individuals is freedom. What you call for is inhuman.

Public officials and secret services might be controversial, but that is only one side of the government. Civil service is a large part of governing a country, and on the whole, they do a good enough, trustworthy enough job.

Good enough? You argued against any sort of change in your previous post. Are you trying to argue that inefficiency cannot be addressed?

A) Duties taken on by the government, more often than not in a relatively professional, relatively trustworthy manner.

In your opinion perhaps but then again, when is the last time you have had to deal with a governmental fuckup? My family has had to deal with plenty. You call us na´ve when we have seen so many problems caused by our government.

These are cops, soldiers fire-fighters, paramedics, garbage men, sewer workers, or just your average office worker - ordinary people funded by the government, because no one else will pay people just to preserve our quality of life. PMCs and private security firms do this for a profit, not to 'protect and serve'.

Police officers do not "protect and serve". According to the case South v. Maryland police officer have no obligation to protect the individual but only to maintain the general order of society. The case was backed up by Gonzales v. Castle Rock and Warren v. District of Columbia and dozens of other cases.

Again, more often than not, they do this in a relatively professional, relatively trustworthy manner. These jobs are done by ordinary, everyday people, working to help people for an often underwhelming salary.

"Help". Their idea of "helping" people might be slightly different from yours or mine. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and governmental mandates.

You are not free from your government because you rely on them to save you from bad things. Sure, sure, you're a big bad tough guy, you even have two guns, you probably keep one on top of your pillow.

Really? Where was the government when my friend's home was being burned to the ground in a wildfire? Oh yeah, the state government responded but the Feds refused to release Firefighting Aircraft because of an issue with their paperwork. Great.

Also, where were the feds when I was nearly killed by flash floods TWICE? Nowhere to be seen. Where were the Feds when the gangs started coming to my home town to peddle their drugs? Oh wait, they were the reason the problems started IN THE FIRST PLACE. Where were the Feds when my home town stood up against the KKK? Oh yeah, the KKK ruled the government at that time so we were shit out of luck. Where were the Feds when my family was forced to march hundreds of miles away from their home in order to be relocated in a barren strip of land? Oh wait, they were the ones that did it. Shall I go on?

The government fucks us and you tell me that we are naive for wanting change.

They're far from perfect, but I'm far more likely to trust an idealistic civil servant than I am a self-serving CEO. At least the former pretends to care about me.

I would not trust either with my life. However, I can trust a CEO to act in his own best interests and his own interests should be tied to the company. I cannot tell what a civil servant is thinking.

You do realise that private individuals are what make up private businesses, right?

And businesses are not people (in my system at least).

The "hands of the people" are private individuals working for and running private businesses, who have no interest in preserving your quality of life - it's now what they're there for. They want to be successful, they aren't working for political, idealistic, altruistic reasons.

They are working to preserve your quality of life. My quality of life goes way down if I do not get my air conditioning. Guess who is trying to make them as cheaply as possible.

You can try putting civil service responsibilities in their hands, but they're just going to drop it.

In your opinion perhaps but "civil service" jobs were done by individuals long before the government got involved.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
No people to work, nothing to make-- true! No people to buy the goods, no profit-- also... actually no, that isn't true. You can profit by doing things purely for yourself; you don't get pieces of paper that are representative of value out of it, but it is nonetheless profit. Maintaining a population costs far more than just one company's sales income (not even to mention profit)-- even if that company sold its product to everyone-- so there is no individual (or in this case business) incentive to actually care about keeping the population existing (at least not one that is not overridden by prohibitive costs.) You take advantage of the existing market demand and profit as much as possible from satisfying it. You do not concern yourself with making sure that the population grows and prospers-- unless you just arbitrarily want to do that more than you want to profit.

Bullshit. If no one buys your product then you cannot make a profit. That is the purpose of business.

It's not quite true, farson135. There isn't even nothing in it for them. There is actually less than nothing in it for them: the costs exceed any potential benefits.

Prove it.

This is a basic economic principle. The better off the civilization the more the people can buy. Americans can buy more because we are well off.

Take the famous example of Henry Ford paying his workers enough so that they could all buy one of the cars that they helped to make. Sounds nice, right? But please show me the (clearly very clever) math that indicates that this would be more profitable than paying his workers next to nothing (assuming they would still work.)

Don't need math. The profitability comes from ensuring that people know about the cars. Making a device popular requires exposure. Back in the day, there were no TVs and no internet.

So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none-- outstanding! My profit from paying my workers more is..?

So let me get this straight, you are only selling to your workers and no one else. Your workers are forced to buy from you and no one else. What is this a plantation? Your model sucks.

Labor costs increase by enough for workers to afford the price of one car each. The material cost (steel or aluminum and plastic and so on) is of course deducted from the price when it comes to my own profit. So we have +PRICE-MATERIALCOST-PRICE. Or... the negative of the price of the materials used to make the car is my 'profit'. Ah, yes: my profit is less than zero. Negative. Wonderful!

Assuming you sell to no one else. Only an idiot would do that.

It is workers (or the government that represents them, potentially) that must demand a higher wage

Duh.

not employers that should be expected to be so generous as to simply throw more money at them because they need a market for their goods.

Wow. You have failed to understand my point on a level not seen since Blablahb graced us with his presence. Dear god in heaven, I have no idea where you came up with your notion but I have to tell you that was bad. Just awful. Go away, and stop talking because anything you have to say will tainted by how bad that previous post was.

Well that was a (not so) interesting read.

Look up the definition of "more" and figure out how using it can change the meaning of a sentence.

So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none-- outstanding! My profit from paying my workers more is..?

So let me get this straight, you are only selling to your workers and no one else. Your workers are forced to buy from you and no one else. What is this a plantation? Your model sucks.

No. Not even close. I'm not actually sure how a reasonable person could read that and take that interpretation-- but you've astonished me once again.

The example is purely a matter of demonstrating that paying workers more does not benefit an employer by expanding a market-- they have no incentive to do so. They have no incentive to care enough about the population and prosperity of the society around them because they can make a profit irrespective of the situation. If the population shrinks, lay people off, slow down production, and take a greater share of the remaining resources. If it doesn't, great.

"So let me get this straight" seems like a verbal tic for you-- it means you are about to grossly misstate something.

There are at least three ways your interpretation is sublimely nonsensical and contradictory to the plain text of what you were reading-- and which demonstrate that Danny Ocean was completely right about how you (at least appear to) approach argument-- as uncharitably as humanly possible:

1)I used an example of a real company that sold cars to many people other than its own workers and was quite profitable.
2)I specified that the (negative) profit I was speaking of is purely a result of paying workers more-- enough more to buy the product rather than not-- it is the result of that one decision.
3)The explicit point of the example was to demonstrate that a business is better off taking advantage of existing markets-- people other than their workers-- rather than paying workers more so that they'll be a better market for goods.

Labor costs increase by enough for workers to afford the price of one car each. The material cost (steel or aluminum and plastic and so on) is of course deducted from the price when it comes to my own profit. So we have +PRICE-MATERIALCOST-PRICE. Or... the negative of the price of the materials used to make the car is my 'profit'. Ah, yes: my profit is less than zero. Negative. Wonderful!

Assuming you sell to no one else. Only an idiot would do that.

No, assuming I'm talking purely about the result of my decision to pay my workers more than otherwise so that they can afford my product. I specified that you can be a profitable business doing this-- just not a maximally profitable one. Which is to say that you make less profit by paying your workers more (unless, of course, the wage affects the quality or quantity of work which, below a certain point, it certainly will.) The decision to pay one's workers more gives a business owner larger costs-- doing so nets him less than nothing.

Bullshit. If no one buys your product then you cannot make a profit. That is the purpose of business.

The purpose of business is to improve your own position by whatever means available (or, more briefly, to profit). This does not require other people. In the case of lacking people to buy some product of yours, instead of mass-producing some product that would make trading it necessary for the production to be profitable, you make and do things that you want and profit thereby. When there is a lack of other people, this means there is a situation of less competition for useful resources. That, in itself, can be more profitable than the alternative.

This is a basic economic principle. The better off the civilization the more the people can buy. Americans can buy more because we are well off.

Yes. It is just not a "basic economic principle" that has anything to do with the incentives of individual businesses. Individual businesses have no pecuniary reason to give a shit about their effect on the prosperity of others.

The economic question is "what to produce, how much, and for whom?" The task of an individual business is to make as much of the last part of that answer as possible "for me (or the shareholders, anyway)!"

Prove it.

I kind of already did. Twice now.

Wow. You have failed to understand my point on a level not seen since Blablahb graced us with his presence. Dear god in heaven, I have no idea where you came up with your notion but I have to tell you that was bad. Just awful. Go away, and stop talking because anything you have to say will tainted by how bad that previous post was.

Heh. You're not fooling anyone with this one, farson. Your point was that this was false:

Private corporations are interested in their own profit, and you can't trust them to maintain minimum standard of living - there's nothing in that for them.

You said that they have an incentive to do so. "Yes there is. No people to work, nothing to make. No people to buy, no profit."

Wait, let me write that again in an 'appropriate' tone:

YOU said that they have an incentive to do so. Here are YOUR words: "Yes there is. No people to work, nothing to make. No people to buy, no profit."

YOU said that businesses have an incentive to make sure there are people to work for them and buy their products. I demonstrated that this was not the case-- to which YOU basically responded "Duh." I didn't spectacularly miss your point, what YOU said was just extremely and obviously false to begin with.

Seanchaidh:
No. Not even close. I'm not actually sure how a reasonable person could read that and take that interpretation-- but you've astonished me once again.

It is easy to make that interpretation when you say that.

YOU argued for a plantation style economy.

The example is purely a matter of demonstrating that paying workers more does not benefit an employer by expanding a market-- they have no incentive to do so.

Actually it does. Productivity increases when your workers are not dying from starvation. It increases when they get time off. Etc.

"So let me get this straight" seems like a verbal tic for you-- it means you are about to grossly misstate something.

Actually it means that I am about to say something that is inconvenient for your bias. I understand the confusion. Many people have trouble seeing the weaknesses in their own arguments and I suppose it is not surprising that the incredible weaknesses in your own arguments are hard to see.

I said it before and I will say it again. I will meet you blow for blow but how about we cut the shit? You are boring enough when you are not trying to insult me.

There are at least three ways your interpretation is sublimely nonsensical and contradictory to the plain text of what you were reading-- and which demonstrate that Danny Ocean was completely right about how you (at least appear to) approach argument-- as uncharitably as humanly possible:

1)I used an example of a real company that sold cars to many people other than its own workers and was quite profitable.
2)I specified that the (negative) profit I was speaking of is purely a result of paying workers more-- enough more to buy the product rather than not-- it is the result of that one decision.
3)The explicit point of the example was to demonstrate that a business is better off taking advantage of existing markets-- people other than their workers-- rather than paying workers more so that they'll be a better market for goods.

You do not understand the basics of economic theory. Your model sucks and it does not take many factors into account. You reduced the world economy to a plantation style economy without even blinking. That is wrong is so many ways.

Never did I even imply that businesses should only sell to workers. If you actually did think that then my statement about how ridiculous your post was is right on the money. If you did not think that then you lied in an attempt to insult me. Either way, you fail.

The purpose of business is to improve your own position by whatever means available (or, more briefly, to profit). This does not require other people.

Since when?

In the case of lacking people to buy some product of yours, instead of mass-producing some product that would make trading it necessary for the production to be profitable, you make and do things that you want and profit thereby. When there is a lack of other people, this means there is a situation of less competition for useful resources. That, in itself, can be more profitable than the alternative.

It also means that production is smaller. Are you honestly going to try and argue that the economic prospects of Barrow, Alaska are higher than Austin, Texas because Barrow has a smaller population? No. There are more prospects and more to work with. More people means that there is more that a business can do.

Yes. It is just not a "basic economic principle" that has anything to do with the incentives of individual businesses. Individual businesses have no pecuniary reason to give a shit about their effect on the prosperity of others.

Yes they do. People who are better off can buy more.

I kind of already did. Twice now.

No you did not.

Heh. You're not fooling anyone with this one, farson.

Back at you.

Wait, let me write that again in an 'appropriate' tone:

Tone? Try paying attention or stop making shit up.

YOU said that businesses have an incentive to make sure there are people to work for them and buy their products.

Yup. And it is 100% true.

I didn't spectacularly miss your point, what YOU said was just extremely and obviously false to begin with.

Nope, it is obviously correct. You even admitted it just before I said "Duh". You do not get to back off of your mistake simply because I caught you. You are wrong. You are attacking me for no reason and you misread what I said. Admit it or just slink away (as usual).

afroebob:

This of course is a very brief little summary, there is a LOT more about the party that I really don't have the patients to go into, but if I where to summarize the party's belief in one sentence it would be this: It is the only political party that exists in the United States that actually believes in freedom rather than just says it does.

How do you know that? The Libertarian's in the US have never even come close to holding any sort of real power, and until they do, you can't tell if they'll actually put into action what they say they believe.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked