Topic: Okay, this is what I really don't like about libertarians
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao started this discussion 13 years ago #29,953
By itself, I don't really care that much about a person's economic philosophy. But I do think libertarians just don't buy into the basic idea of a social contract. They don't seem to care what happens to other people. There's a basic cruelness in the philosophy that seems to carry over to people's ability or willingness to empathize with others... I see it over and over in how libertarians act.
I can't think of a single libertarian I know irl who doesn't have some basic cruelness about them. And I can't think of another political bent that is so predictive of whether I'll think someone is a decent person or not. It's not just a political or economic ideology, it seems to be... a total attitude about whether other people matter or not. It's inhumane and makes for inhumane people.
I can't think of a single libertarian I know irl who doesn't have some basic cruelness about them. And I can't think of another political bent that is so predictive of whether I'll think someone is a decent person or not. It's not just a political or economic ideology, it seems to be... a total attitude about whether other people matter or not. It's inhumane and makes for inhumane people.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #434,500
That's kind of why I came to National Socialism. They care about their people.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 20 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #434,501
This is going to be a grate thread
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #434,502
Private charity/magic/etc. Thanks.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #434,503
Meowmeowderp joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #434,505
由良やわユナかなょんや肉のだあ
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #434,519
@OP
> By itself, I don't really care that much about a person's economic philosophy.
In my view, laissez-faire economics are really inseparable from individual rights, which is what libertarianism is, basically.
> But I do think libertarians just don't buy into the basic idea of a social contract. They don't seem to care what happens to other people. There's a basic cruelness in the philosophy that seems to carry over to people's ability or willingness to empathize with others... I see it over and over in how libertarians act.
How so? The basic premise of libertarianism is that you can't force someone to act, that is, all interactions should be voluntary. Now of course this is an ideal, and like most ideals will never be realized. But the idea of everyone is free to do what they will, provided it doesn't infringe on others' right to do likewise seems like a strong social contract to me.
> I can't think of a single libertarian I know irl who doesn't have some basic cruelness about them. And I can't think of another political bent that is so predictive of whether I'll think someone is a decent person or not. It's not just a political or economic ideology, it seems to be... a total attitude about whether other people matter or not. It's inhumane and makes for inhumane people.
You could say the same thing about any worldview, and I must confess I feel that way about Christianity to some extent. But how does having freedom affect whether other people matter or not? I would argue it imposes a higher moral obligation to help the poor and disabled, because you have the choice of whether to do it or not. Yes some people will be selfish douchebags and keep it all for themselves, but others will be philanthropists, or volunteer, or even provide employment to people with disabilities.
I think it breaks down like this: socialism and authoritarianism assume people are inherently bad, therefore they must be forced to act a certain way. Libertarianism assumes people are, on average, good and can be trusted to do the right thing in most cases.
> By itself, I don't really care that much about a person's economic philosophy.
In my view, laissez-faire economics are really inseparable from individual rights, which is what libertarianism is, basically.
> But I do think libertarians just don't buy into the basic idea of a social contract. They don't seem to care what happens to other people. There's a basic cruelness in the philosophy that seems to carry over to people's ability or willingness to empathize with others... I see it over and over in how libertarians act.
How so? The basic premise of libertarianism is that you can't force someone to act, that is, all interactions should be voluntary. Now of course this is an ideal, and like most ideals will never be realized. But the idea of everyone is free to do what they will, provided it doesn't infringe on others' right to do likewise seems like a strong social contract to me.
> I can't think of a single libertarian I know irl who doesn't have some basic cruelness about them. And I can't think of another political bent that is so predictive of whether I'll think someone is a decent person or not. It's not just a political or economic ideology, it seems to be... a total attitude about whether other people matter or not. It's inhumane and makes for inhumane people.
You could say the same thing about any worldview, and I must confess I feel that way about Christianity to some extent. But how does having freedom affect whether other people matter or not? I would argue it imposes a higher moral obligation to help the poor and disabled, because you have the choice of whether to do it or not. Yes some people will be selfish douchebags and keep it all for themselves, but others will be philanthropists, or volunteer, or even provide employment to people with disabilities.
I think it breaks down like this: socialism and authoritarianism assume people are inherently bad, therefore they must be forced to act a certain way. Libertarianism assumes people are, on average, good and can be trusted to do the right thing in most cases.
!KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #434,523
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I recently came across some criticism of this kind of arguing, i.e. quoting sentences point by point instead of responding to them essay style in one coherent text because doing point by points make the author look stupid because it comes across like the post would be complete shit unless you post sentences you're directly replying to
Also its a lot easier to take sentences out of context (It was written as a complete post, not separate sentences) and argue against them than it is to reply to the text as a whole
Idk about this argument but just saying
I recently came across some criticism of this kind of arguing, i.e. quoting sentences point by point instead of responding to them essay style in one coherent text because doing point by points make the author look stupid because it comes across like the post would be complete shit unless you post sentences you're directly replying to
Also its a lot easier to take sentences out of context (It was written as a complete post, not separate sentences) and argue against them than it is to reply to the text as a whole
Idk about this argument but just saying
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #434,527
@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
I like to respond to things on a point-by-point basis when I'm debating something. I'm too tired at the moment to write a large essay about it.
I felt like Becky's first sentence made a major point, which merited its own response. Aside from that, I did not otherwise edit the post I responded to nor, as far as I can tell, took anything out of context.
I like to respond to things on a point-by-point basis when I'm debating something. I'm too tired at the moment to write a large essay about it.
I felt like Becky's first sentence made a major point, which merited its own response. Aside from that, I did not otherwise edit the post I responded to nor, as far as I can tell, took anything out of context.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #434,528
Libertarianism: People will act in their self-interest until someone points out how that won't work - then there will be philanthropists around every corner to solve society's problems.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #434,529
@previous (H)
You're right, people should be forced to act the way you think they should. But in all seriousness, why don't you join a commune?
You're right, people should be forced to act the way you think they should. But in all seriousness, why don't you join a commune?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #434,531
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #434,532
@434,529 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I'm criticizing your hand-waving. I'm not espousing some authoritarian philosophy. Thanks.
I'm criticizing your hand-waving. I'm not espousing some authoritarian philosophy. Thanks.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #434,534
Meta: is Ron Swanson your idea of the übermensch?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,535
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Never seen Parks and Recreation, but he seems like a pretty cool guy from the wikipedia article!
Never seen Parks and Recreation, but he seems like a pretty cool guy from the wikipedia article!
Riffraff !TrAnSy3k/A joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,536
What came to my mind reading all the above was the Industrial Age. Seems to me that when there are few laws regulating the treatment of other humans that its bound to disaster. At that time unions were a necessity (of course they're a joke now) but those in power did not care about the treatment of their workers, or even children. It was all about the profit. I don't think that's changed.
I try to hold a middle ground in these matters.
I try to hold a middle ground in these matters.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 23 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,537
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,538
@434,536 (Riffraff !TrAnSy3k/A)
In 1914, Henry Ford paid his employees $5 a day for an eight hour day (which was a solid middle class wage 99 years ago). Why did Ford Motor Company give their workers such generous pay? It wasn't the unions, the United Auto Workers wouldn't exist for another 21 years. Nor was it because Ford was a nice guy, but because he realized that by paying his workers more he could reduce turnover, attract the best workers, improve productivity and make more money.
If you look at China right now, wages are starting to rise rapidly (still extremely low relative to Europe and America, but still) and working conditions are improving (again, nowhere near western world levels, but still). Not because of unions, but because the massive flood of subsistence farmers into the cities has begun to slow finally, and employers now must compete for workers.
According to the Wall Street Journal, manufacturing wages have risen 78% in China since 2008. (link)
@previous (C) inb4 hurr randroid invisible hand, etc.
In 1914, Henry Ford paid his employees $5 a day for an eight hour day (which was a solid middle class wage 99 years ago). Why did Ford Motor Company give their workers such generous pay? It wasn't the unions, the United Auto Workers wouldn't exist for another 21 years. Nor was it because Ford was a nice guy, but because he realized that by paying his workers more he could reduce turnover, attract the best workers, improve productivity and make more money.
If you look at China right now, wages are starting to rise rapidly (still extremely low relative to Europe and America, but still) and working conditions are improving (again, nowhere near western world levels, but still). Not because of unions, but because the massive flood of subsistence farmers into the cities has begun to slow finally, and employers now must compete for workers.
According to the Wall Street Journal, manufacturing wages have risen 78% in China since 2008. (link)
@previous (C) inb4 hurr randroid invisible hand, etc.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Riffraff !TrAnSy3k/A replied with this 13 years ago, 10 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,539
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,540
Riffraff !TrAnSy3k/A replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,542
@434,538 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Do do you believe the industrialists, on average, did more good or do you think most, on average, were bad? I am no expert and have read little on the subject(sorry) but it seems like if there was more good than bad then the workers rights laws were unnecessary.
Do do you believe the industrialists, on average, did more good or do you think most, on average, were bad? I am no expert and have read little on the subject(sorry) but it seems like if there was more good than bad then the workers rights laws were unnecessary.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,543
@434,540 (C)
It doesn't. When the demand for workers exceeds supply, wages rise. It's complex, but even a child can grasp it.
It doesn't. When the demand for workers exceeds supply, wages rise. It's complex, but even a child can grasp it.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,544
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
> 2013
> seriously using China's economy as positive evidence for your socioeconomic views
> 2013
> seriously using China's economy as positive evidence for your socioeconomic views
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,545
@434,542 (Riffraff !TrAnSy3k/A)
Yes. We all benefit from industry. Without the industrial revolution, we'd basically be in the middle ages. A middle class person in America today arguably has a better life than a member of the 1% did before the industrial revolution. Even the poor in America have a car (often more than one), a computer, television, air conditioning, heating, electricity, food (in fact, more than half of Americans are now overweight, and the poor are more likely to be fat than the rich -- complete opposite of most of human history).
Now compare this to a non-industrial country today (like most of Africa), or America or Europe 200 years ago and which would you rather live in?
Yes. We all benefit from industry. Without the industrial revolution, we'd basically be in the middle ages. A middle class person in America today arguably has a better life than a member of the 1% did before the industrial revolution. Even the poor in America have a car (often more than one), a computer, television, air conditioning, heating, electricity, food (in fact, more than half of Americans are now overweight, and the poor are more likely to be fat than the rich -- complete opposite of most of human history).
Now compare this to a non-industrial country today (like most of Africa), or America or Europe 200 years ago and which would you rather live in?
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,546
@434,544 (C)
Could you please, specifically, point out the error in my reasoning? Or is snark and greentext the best argument you can manage?
Could you please, specifically, point out the error in my reasoning? Or is snark and greentext the best argument you can manage?
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,547
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,548
Riffraff !TrAnSy3k/A replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,549
@434,545 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I guess what's disturbing me so far is the lack of good intentions. Good has come of it, sure, but not because it was intentionally planned. Ford was not a "nice guy" but his business sense just happened to be for the good of some people, a by product.
The industrial revolution has certainly made life easier, but again its only a by product and not the actual intention.
I think Becky may be on to something, although I don't quite see it so starkly in black and white.
Thank you for the discussion, I know you wrote you were tired as am I. I'd like to do some reading and perhaps continue this discussion. I appreciate it.
I guess what's disturbing me so far is the lack of good intentions. Good has come of it, sure, but not because it was intentionally planned. Ford was not a "nice guy" but his business sense just happened to be for the good of some people, a by product.
The industrial revolution has certainly made life easier, but again its only a by product and not the actual intention.
I think Becky may be on to something, although I don't quite see it so starkly in black and white.
Thank you for the discussion, I know you wrote you were tired as am I. I'd like to do some reading and perhaps continue this discussion. I appreciate it.
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,574
@434,538 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
So, what does this prove? Companies will pay Chinese workers shit until they don't have to? I don't get it. Henry Ford was a nice guy while kids were working in coal mines? It's not exactly a validation of a whole philosophy, is it?
No one is saying that supply and demand is a mystery, but you can't just point to something where supply and demand is a factor and think it a validation of your principles. China has a fully entrenched regime to handle social problems. They do it militarily. They do it with tanks and guns. If you have to hold China up as an example of Libertarian principles, then you have failed.
So, what does this prove? Companies will pay Chinese workers shit until they don't have to? I don't get it. Henry Ford was a nice guy while kids were working in coal mines? It's not exactly a validation of a whole philosophy, is it?
No one is saying that supply and demand is a mystery, but you can't just point to something where supply and demand is a factor and think it a validation of your principles. China has a fully entrenched regime to handle social problems. They do it militarily. They do it with tanks and guns. If you have to hold China up as an example of Libertarian principles, then you have failed.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,610
@434,538 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
> In 1914, Henry Ford paid his employees $5 a day for an eight hour day (which was a solid middle class wage 99 years ago). Why did Ford Motor Company give their workers such generous pay?
Actually, I think this rather proves the opposite point. While there were other car companies in 1914, Ford didn't really have any serious competitors, not yet. The race to the bottom in terms of wages came when they had to start cutting the fat to stay competitive. Of course Ford could pay whatever they wanted in 1914, they were like Google a few years ago. The 1914 automobile "industry" is a really strange example... not at all relevant to a mature or competitive industry. If Ford tried to pay huge wages to their line workers today, they'd be subject to a shareholder suit for mismanagement.
> It wasn't the unions, the United Auto Workers wouldn't exist for another 21 years. Nor was it because Ford was a nice guy, but because he realized that by paying his workers more he could reduce turnover, attract the best workers, improve productivity and make more money.
The United Auto Workers wasn't necessary yet.
He was trying to recruit workers from other industries.
It wasn't a mature industry.
I'm also confused by the China example, but others have covered it better than I could.
> In 1914, Henry Ford paid his employees $5 a day for an eight hour day (which was a solid middle class wage 99 years ago). Why did Ford Motor Company give their workers such generous pay?
Actually, I think this rather proves the opposite point. While there were other car companies in 1914, Ford didn't really have any serious competitors, not yet. The race to the bottom in terms of wages came when they had to start cutting the fat to stay competitive. Of course Ford could pay whatever they wanted in 1914, they were like Google a few years ago. The 1914 automobile "industry" is a really strange example... not at all relevant to a mature or competitive industry. If Ford tried to pay huge wages to their line workers today, they'd be subject to a shareholder suit for mismanagement.
> It wasn't the unions, the United Auto Workers wouldn't exist for another 21 years. Nor was it because Ford was a nice guy, but because he realized that by paying his workers more he could reduce turnover, attract the best workers, improve productivity and make more money.
The United Auto Workers wasn't necessary yet.
He was trying to recruit workers from other industries.
It wasn't a mature industry.
I'm also confused by the China example, but others have covered it better than I could.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,615
@434,519 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
> > By itself, I don't really care that much about a person's economic philosophy.
> In my view, laissez-faire economics are really inseparable from individual rights, which is what libertarianism is, basically.
Well I'm drawing parallels between a person's philosophy and their morals, so I guess I can't complain.
> > But I do think libertarians just don't buy into the basic idea of a social contract. They don't seem to care what happens to other people. There's a basic cruelness in the philosophy that seems to carry over to people's ability or willingness to empathize with others... I see it over and over in how libertarians act.
> How so? The basic premise of libertarianism is that you can't force someone to act, that is, all interactions should be voluntary. Now of course this is an ideal, and like most ideals will never be realized. But the idea of everyone is free to do what they will, provided it doesn't infringe on others' right to do likewise seems like a strong social contract to me.
No, I don't think so. Something has to be given up, to be a social contract... that's what a contract is.
> > I can't think of a single libertarian I know irl who doesn't have some basic cruelness about them. And I can't think of another political bent that is so predictive of whether I'll think someone is a decent person or not. It's not just a political or economic ideology, it seems to be... a total attitude about whether other people matter or not. It's inhumane and makes for inhumane people.
> You could say the same thing about any worldview, and I must confess I feel that way about Christianity to some extent. But how does having freedom affect whether other people matter or not? I would argue it imposes a higher moral obligation to help the poor and disabled, because you have the choice of whether to do it or not. Yes some people will be selfish douchebags and keep it all for themselves, but others will be philanthropists, or volunteer, or even provide employment to people with disabilities.
>
> I think it breaks down like this: socialism and authoritarianism assume people are inherently bad, therefore they must be forced to act a certain way. Libertarianism assumes people are, on average, good and can be trusted to do the right thing in most cases.
You do realize that socialism and authoritarianism are not, like, the only alternatives to libertarianism, right?
But even so - I disagree with this basic premise. I think a system can be awful to people with no ill intent at all on the part of the people in it.
This is something else that bugs me about libertarianism: you (the general you) try to take an abstract philosophy for how people should interact, and think it can apply equally to an interaction between two people, and the interaction between a corporate entity and its employees, and the entire economy as a whole.
Libertarians seem not to acknowledge that aggregates of people are qualitatively different from a single person... that you can have a bunch of well-intentioned people running a business, and yet that business will eventually grow big enough and merciless enough to run roughshod over all the employees' rights, even in the absence of ill intent.
Libertarianism fails to acknowledge the existence of institutions or systems or anything like that at all, it seems.
> > By itself, I don't really care that much about a person's economic philosophy.
> In my view, laissez-faire economics are really inseparable from individual rights, which is what libertarianism is, basically.
Well I'm drawing parallels between a person's philosophy and their morals, so I guess I can't complain.
> > But I do think libertarians just don't buy into the basic idea of a social contract. They don't seem to care what happens to other people. There's a basic cruelness in the philosophy that seems to carry over to people's ability or willingness to empathize with others... I see it over and over in how libertarians act.
> How so? The basic premise of libertarianism is that you can't force someone to act, that is, all interactions should be voluntary. Now of course this is an ideal, and like most ideals will never be realized. But the idea of everyone is free to do what they will, provided it doesn't infringe on others' right to do likewise seems like a strong social contract to me.
No, I don't think so. Something has to be given up, to be a social contract... that's what a contract is.
> > I can't think of a single libertarian I know irl who doesn't have some basic cruelness about them. And I can't think of another political bent that is so predictive of whether I'll think someone is a decent person or not. It's not just a political or economic ideology, it seems to be... a total attitude about whether other people matter or not. It's inhumane and makes for inhumane people.
> You could say the same thing about any worldview, and I must confess I feel that way about Christianity to some extent. But how does having freedom affect whether other people matter or not? I would argue it imposes a higher moral obligation to help the poor and disabled, because you have the choice of whether to do it or not. Yes some people will be selfish douchebags and keep it all for themselves, but others will be philanthropists, or volunteer, or even provide employment to people with disabilities.
>
> I think it breaks down like this: socialism and authoritarianism assume people are inherently bad, therefore they must be forced to act a certain way. Libertarianism assumes people are, on average, good and can be trusted to do the right thing in most cases.
You do realize that socialism and authoritarianism are not, like, the only alternatives to libertarianism, right?
But even so - I disagree with this basic premise. I think a system can be awful to people with no ill intent at all on the part of the people in it.
This is something else that bugs me about libertarianism: you (the general you) try to take an abstract philosophy for how people should interact, and think it can apply equally to an interaction between two people, and the interaction between a corporate entity and its employees, and the entire economy as a whole.
Libertarians seem not to acknowledge that aggregates of people are qualitatively different from a single person... that you can have a bunch of well-intentioned people running a business, and yet that business will eventually grow big enough and merciless enough to run roughshod over all the employees' rights, even in the absence of ill intent.
Libertarianism fails to acknowledge the existence of institutions or systems or anything like that at all, it seems.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,650
Give me Liberty or Give me DeathI ain't no Libertarian but I do enjoy laffing at the Ron Paul's of USA.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 27 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,654
@434,574 (H)
@434,610 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
@434,615 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
These are, in fact, quality posts.
@434,610 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
@434,615 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
These are, in fact, quality posts.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 41 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,658
@434,548 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
No, I actually was busy.
So, it sounds like you’re suggesting libertarianism absolves the individual of responsibility to treat others ethically, because everybody is assumed to be acting rationally in their own interest. The edge cases where people are incapable of acting in their interests are wholly absolved from concern because private charities can exist. Furthermore, since it cannot be proven that private charities will not solve a reasonable set of needs for a reasonable number of people, private charity at large remains a wholly valid model.
I see your views of libertarianism as tolerating subtle, systemic, and sociological coercion, aggression, and even outright fraud and manipulation. When individual responsibility and “the market will sort it out” are maxims to explain away reasonable arguments for regulation and public authority, what isn’t stated is just how much suffering is reasonable and how many affected people are reasonable social costs for a world where the social contract can be ignored without direct, known repercussion.
Regarding China, specifically, and foreign labor at large, you’re implicitly arguing that some level of exploitation is acceptable and even a healthy indicator of a market successfully implementing arbitrage. The diminishing returns on exploiting market imbalances are your proofs of validity to your model, rather than flaws in assumptions that perfect information and rational choice are present. The human costs are ignored and washed away with “personal responsibility” and “private charity” rather than acknowledging the flaws in a system that lacks public bodies to require better information and hold others accountable for their harm to vulnerable people or for polluting the commons. The argument that foreign labor has stabilized between supply and demand around 2010 as implicit justification of its recent historical exploitation (starting in the late 70s and early 80s) is wholly without merit. Furthermore, the private entities that have exploited China for 40 years are not absolved from ongoing abuse of the social contract.
Nike is an easy example—even if their exploitations of foreign labor were cleaned up, the company still abuses and coerces local creative talent with imbalanced legal structures, unfair contracts, and excessive payment terms and paperwork requirements. Even if Nike’s exploitation of domestic talent were cleaned up, the company still abuses and coerces local and regional municipalities by avoiding taxation, purchasing and building on unincorporated land (to avoid taxes and regulations), while also lobbying for handouts from government.
The problems continue to circle not around government or free will, but around economic systems where exploitation is acceptable and a race to the bottom is inherit to the structure of said system. Capitalism has flaws, and libertarianism only makes them worse. Cooperatively working toward ethical and civil exchanges that improves individuals and the commons is a much more ethical and moral goal.
I argue the social costs from structures of power and authority are more tolerable for more people than the social costs we would see with libertarianism.
No, I actually was busy.
So, it sounds like you’re suggesting libertarianism absolves the individual of responsibility to treat others ethically, because everybody is assumed to be acting rationally in their own interest. The edge cases where people are incapable of acting in their interests are wholly absolved from concern because private charities can exist. Furthermore, since it cannot be proven that private charities will not solve a reasonable set of needs for a reasonable number of people, private charity at large remains a wholly valid model.
I see your views of libertarianism as tolerating subtle, systemic, and sociological coercion, aggression, and even outright fraud and manipulation. When individual responsibility and “the market will sort it out” are maxims to explain away reasonable arguments for regulation and public authority, what isn’t stated is just how much suffering is reasonable and how many affected people are reasonable social costs for a world where the social contract can be ignored without direct, known repercussion.
Regarding China, specifically, and foreign labor at large, you’re implicitly arguing that some level of exploitation is acceptable and even a healthy indicator of a market successfully implementing arbitrage. The diminishing returns on exploiting market imbalances are your proofs of validity to your model, rather than flaws in assumptions that perfect information and rational choice are present. The human costs are ignored and washed away with “personal responsibility” and “private charity” rather than acknowledging the flaws in a system that lacks public bodies to require better information and hold others accountable for their harm to vulnerable people or for polluting the commons. The argument that foreign labor has stabilized between supply and demand around 2010 as implicit justification of its recent historical exploitation (starting in the late 70s and early 80s) is wholly without merit. Furthermore, the private entities that have exploited China for 40 years are not absolved from ongoing abuse of the social contract.
Nike is an easy example—even if their exploitations of foreign labor were cleaned up, the company still abuses and coerces local creative talent with imbalanced legal structures, unfair contracts, and excessive payment terms and paperwork requirements. Even if Nike’s exploitation of domestic talent were cleaned up, the company still abuses and coerces local and regional municipalities by avoiding taxation, purchasing and building on unincorporated land (to avoid taxes and regulations), while also lobbying for handouts from government.
The problems continue to circle not around government or free will, but around economic systems where exploitation is acceptable and a race to the bottom is inherit to the structure of said system. Capitalism has flaws, and libertarianism only makes them worse. Cooperatively working toward ethical and civil exchanges that improves individuals and the commons is a much more ethical and moral goal.
I argue the social costs from structures of power and authority are more tolerable for more people than the social costs we would see with libertarianism.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous C double-posted this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,659
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,662
@434,658 (C)
Damn, this is really well put. Do you have a background in political theory or economics, out of curiosity?
Damn, this is really well put. Do you have a background in political theory or economics, out of curiosity?
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,663
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
Nope, but I’ve read a lot of Hardin and Shiva. I’ve only taken microeconomics, but I have had a lot of friends interested in ethics, economics, anarchism, history, philosophy, and multiculturalism.
Nope, but I’ve read a lot of Hardin and Shiva. I’ve only taken microeconomics, but I have had a lot of friends interested in ethics, economics, anarchism, history, philosophy, and multiculturalism.
Anonymous C double-posted this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #434,667
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 20 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #434,783
So, essentially, this thread has disproved Libertarianism?
Anonymous L replied with this 13 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #434,883
Bump
jump !NFkQePxwGo joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #434,902
@434,658 (C)
It's nice to see someone address this with a rational mindset and not relying on confirmation bias.
It's nice to see someone address this with a rational mindset and not relying on confirmation bias.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #434,910
> I can't think of a single libertarian I know irl who doesn't have some basic cruelness about them.
Penn Jillette still counts as a good libertarian, yes?
Penn Jillette still counts as a good libertarian, yes?
Meowmeowderp replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #434,921
Nigger nigger get out of office.....
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #434,927
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #434,932
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
Yes! Becky claims that she personally mentored him on his views while she was shark hunting in Austalia.
Wait. Shit, wrong person.
I dunno. She probably called him a cunt or something.
Yes! Becky claims that she personally mentored him on his views while she was shark hunting in Austalia.
Wait. Shit, wrong person.
I dunno. She probably called him a cunt or something.
Anonymous L replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #434,952
Anonymous L double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 days later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #435,774
bump
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 6 months later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,033
lolbump
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,041
@OP
> libertarians just don't buy into the basic idea of a social contract
You're right. They don't. That's the whole idea. I don't see a problem with this. All contracts should be explicit. Consent needs to be explicit. Contracts cannot be implied.
> They don't seem to care what happens to other people
They do, they just don't believe that people should be forced to care about other people. They shouldn't be forced to care for other people, or be forced into a shared burden system in which they do not wish to participate.
Also, we're just talking about extreme libertarians here. Anarchists and extreme minarchists. Most libertarians are just people who disagree with republicans' social policies but also disagree with democrats economic policies and want a third alternative that focuses on maximizing freedom instead of expanding government. Why is that seen as so extreme?
> libertarians just don't buy into the basic idea of a social contract
You're right. They don't. That's the whole idea. I don't see a problem with this. All contracts should be explicit. Consent needs to be explicit. Contracts cannot be implied.
> They don't seem to care what happens to other people
They do, they just don't believe that people should be forced to care about other people. They shouldn't be forced to care for other people, or be forced into a shared burden system in which they do not wish to participate.
Also, we're just talking about extreme libertarians here. Anarchists and extreme minarchists. Most libertarians are just people who disagree with republicans' social policies but also disagree with democrats economic policies and want a third alternative that focuses on maximizing freedom instead of expanding government. Why is that seen as so extreme?
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,054
@previous (O)
> libertarians just don't buy into the basic idea of a social contract
Social Contract theory is a viscous scam to erode human rights. I can't believe people are too stupid to see that.
> libertarians just don't buy into the basic idea of a social contract
Social Contract theory is a viscous scam to erode human rights. I can't believe people are too stupid to see that.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,055
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,058
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 41 seconds later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,059
@468,041 (O)
> Also, we're just talking about extreme libertarians here. Anarchists and extreme minarchists. Most libertarians are just people who disagree with republicans' social policies but also disagree with democrats economic policies and want a third alternative that focuses on maximizing freedom instead of expanding government. Why is that seen as so extreme?
FUCKING THIS. Why is everyone always strawmanning libertarianism into some kind of Wild West/Somalia (ironically the situation in Somalia was brought about by the collapse of a communist regime there) fantasy?
> Also, we're just talking about extreme libertarians here. Anarchists and extreme minarchists. Most libertarians are just people who disagree with republicans' social policies but also disagree with democrats economic policies and want a third alternative that focuses on maximizing freedom instead of expanding government. Why is that seen as so extreme?
FUCKING THIS. Why is everyone always strawmanning libertarianism into some kind of Wild West/Somalia (ironically the situation in Somalia was brought about by the collapse of a communist regime there) fantasy?
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,061
Anonymous Q replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,066
dw ltd joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,081
i never saw this thread wow becky is so compassionate :')
Anonymous H replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,086
@previous (dw ltd)
I know right? This is one of the serious threads we had before arguments about libertarianism became just spamming strawmen, ad hominems, and vague platitudes. (by everyone on both sides of that argument) Now, not many actually want to invite the same arguments that actually sound convincing. It's just easier to post images and vague statements about how $myIdea is great when everyone has already has already explained how $strawmanMyVersionOfYouridea fails.
I know right? This is one of the serious threads we had before arguments about libertarianism became just spamming strawmen, ad hominems, and vague platitudes. (by everyone on both sides of that argument) Now, not many actually want to invite the same arguments that actually sound convincing. It's just easier to post images and vague statements about how $myIdea is great when everyone has already has already explained how $strawmanMyVersionOfYouridea fails.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 38 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,088
@434,615 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
> You do realize that socialism and authoritarianism are not, like, the only alternatives to libertarianism, right?
What are the other alternatives, then?
> But even so - I disagree with this basic premise. I think a system can be awful to people with no ill intent at all on the part of the people in it.
I agree. I believe most of the people in the Third Reich were probably not that bad, or at least no worse than normal politicians.
> This is something else that bugs me about libertarianism: you (the general you) try to take an abstract philosophy for how people should interact, and think it can apply equally to an interaction between two people, and the interaction between a corporate entity and its employees, and the entire economy as a whole.
Why not? What's wrong with allowing businesses, customers, and workers freedom to act?
> Libertarians seem not to acknowledge that aggregates of people are qualitatively different from a single person... that you can have a bunch of well-intentioned people running a business, and yet that business will eventually grow big enough and merciless enough to run roughshod over all the employees' rights, even in the absence of ill intent.
And if it does, they will have trouble finding employees and/or customers. No business can force anyone to work for them or buy from them. Why must a big business necessarily be merciless? Are small businesses inherently nicer?
> Libertarianism fails to acknowledge the existence of institutions or systems or anything like that at all, it seems.
You're confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians do believe government has a role, just a much smaller one than Team Red or Team Blue would like.
> You do realize that socialism and authoritarianism are not, like, the only alternatives to libertarianism, right?
What are the other alternatives, then?
> But even so - I disagree with this basic premise. I think a system can be awful to people with no ill intent at all on the part of the people in it.
I agree. I believe most of the people in the Third Reich were probably not that bad, or at least no worse than normal politicians.
> This is something else that bugs me about libertarianism: you (the general you) try to take an abstract philosophy for how people should interact, and think it can apply equally to an interaction between two people, and the interaction between a corporate entity and its employees, and the entire economy as a whole.
Why not? What's wrong with allowing businesses, customers, and workers freedom to act?
> Libertarians seem not to acknowledge that aggregates of people are qualitatively different from a single person... that you can have a bunch of well-intentioned people running a business, and yet that business will eventually grow big enough and merciless enough to run roughshod over all the employees' rights, even in the absence of ill intent.
And if it does, they will have trouble finding employees and/or customers. No business can force anyone to work for them or buy from them. Why must a big business necessarily be merciless? Are small businesses inherently nicer?
> Libertarianism fails to acknowledge the existence of institutions or systems or anything like that at all, it seems.
You're confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians do believe government has a role, just a much smaller one than Team Red or Team Blue would like.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,113
@468,086 (H)
The problem is libertarians are too busy trying to enlighten big government retards. That's never going to happen. Big government types operate entirely on fear. Principles always go out the window any time humans are afraid.
You can't argue with an insanity that creates big government, acknowledges that big government fucks them, yet only ever demands more of the disease.
The problem is libertarians are too busy trying to enlighten big government retards. That's never going to happen. Big government types operate entirely on fear. Principles always go out the window any time humans are afraid.
You can't argue with an insanity that creates big government, acknowledges that big government fucks them, yet only ever demands more of the disease.
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 32 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,118
libertarians believe the free market will fix everything but the free market is just a hungry beast out to feed itself.
Anonymous S replied with this 12 years ago, 26 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,124
@previous (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
Ascribing personality and consciousness to an inanimate collection of voluntary interpersonal transactions. Excellent and revealing lib-drivel.
Heterosexuality is just a hungry beast out to reproduce humans to the point of global famine. Clearly we should be regulating sexuality with violent coercion before it's too late.
It's so easy it's laughable.
Ascribing personality and consciousness to an inanimate collection of voluntary interpersonal transactions. Excellent and revealing lib-drivel.
Heterosexuality is just a hungry beast out to reproduce humans to the point of global famine. Clearly we should be regulating sexuality with violent coercion before it's too late.
It's so easy it's laughable.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,126
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,128
@468,124 (S)
I agree. Japan has a shrinking population which is good. So does western society like in the UK. Sadly the UK government along with other western governments insist on importing 3rd world immigrants to bump up the population as a "fix" to the struggling economy. I believe the west had reached its limit in population numbers and what we really need to do is close our borders and let our numbers rebalance. I'm glad you're with me on this.
I think Hitler had the right idea when he removed all that wasn't German although I would not see the need to kill anyone.
I agree. Japan has a shrinking population which is good. So does western society like in the UK. Sadly the UK government along with other western governments insist on importing 3rd world immigrants to bump up the population as a "fix" to the struggling economy. I believe the west had reached its limit in population numbers and what we really need to do is close our borders and let our numbers rebalance. I'm glad you're with me on this.
I think Hitler had the right idea when he removed all that wasn't German although I would not see the need to kill anyone.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,129
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 replied with this 12 years ago, 21 seconds later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,130
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,132
@op
What the fuck is a libertarian?
What the fuck is a libertarian?
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 replied with this 12 years ago, 50 seconds later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,133
@previous (U)
Why would you ask someone who might not be here for a while. You clearly have the internet why not type it into Google?
Why would you ask someone who might not be here for a while. You clearly have the internet why not type it into Google?
Anonymous U replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,134
@previous (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
Because I don't care enough to make an effort. Besides I'm banned from Google.
Because I don't care enough to make an effort. Besides I'm banned from Google.
Anonymous S replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #468,138
@468,128 (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
We should go even further and require everyone to be gay. Then immigration is no longer a weapon, as they'll be forced into gayity as well.
Really now. We can't leave decisions around something as important as human reproduction to self-interested individuals. That's totally irrational. They'll be down syndrome babies everywhere! Better to have the government take control over of all human reproduction, for our own good.
We should go even further and require everyone to be gay. Then immigration is no longer a weapon, as they'll be forced into gayity as well.
Really now. We can't leave decisions around something as important as human reproduction to self-interested individuals. That's totally irrational. They'll be down syndrome babies everywhere! Better to have the government take control over of all human reproduction, for our own good.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)