How libertarianism helps the poor

[rainingbitcoins]

I don't care about Norway. It offers me little opportunity and freedom. It looks like a hostile place to start a business.

In other words, you didn't read the article I posted, or even the two lousy paragraphs of the article I pasted here.

Companies do not become supermen just by having huge profit-margins. Their life support is solely in their consumers. A company only becomes a corporation when it becomes exempt from liability and can be bailed out by its government benefactor on a whim. Businesses are on a equal playing field with individuals in a free environment; subject to the same liability and failure.

They would be replaced by many competitive companies without unfair restrictions on how they can serve their consumers.

Again, with the obvious incentive of huge profits to be gained from exploiting their workers, who would ensure things stay this way? Or do you just somehow trust the businessman to do what's right, despite the evidence of all of recorded history ("they worked their people to death for their own high profits because of GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS! Don't you get it?" lol).

Also, we have lived off hunting animals for most of our history. I doubt we would throw the ecosystem off that much. We are not above nature.

Yeah, I don't think you've spent much time researching the population density of hunter/gatherer societies versus modern industrialized societies. I'd also love to hear how some guy in the inner city with a low-wage job is supposed to just go hunting when he has no transportation and there isn't a deer within 40 miles of his apartment.

Look, you seem like a smart kid, but maybe you should try reading more diverse sources if you want to be fully informed about the world.

Also, you negate the fact that Norway is puny. Of course whatever they do works for them. They probably import most of their working-class labor.

Ah, so social democracy works great if you only have 10 million people, but somewhere there's a magical line where it stops working. Gotcha. Is Germany (population 70 million, strongest economy in Europe), above or below that line?

[Anonymous]

Look, I haven't been fair to you. I apologize. I will continue this discussion when I am willing to put in just as much effort as you are.

[AntiVigilante]

Look, I haven't been fair to you. I apologize. I will continue this discussion when I am willing to put in just as much effort as you are.

I think the fact that you have FTC people going to work for the companies they allowed to merge, and Net Neutrality politicians bait and switching to prop up dying traditional media, that fact negates most pro state arguments.

People don't need government. They need governance.

[myrkul]

People don't need government. They need governance.

Well said.

[hugolp]

There was no social democracy in Europe in 1900, and social democracy as we know it didn't really start to take hold over there until after WWII.

You can subjectively cherry pick your dates, but the reality is that Bismark was the one who started the government programs to keep the poor in line, that we understand by social-democracy. This is a historic fact accepted by all historias.

And the facts are that the psuedo-free market of the USA gave better conditions to the workers thatn the european proto-social-democracies.

Now, if we compare the situation of the lower classes in modern Europe with modern America, things start to look pretty bad for the U.S. The poor here have no health care, lower social mobility, lower life expectancy, fewer educational opportunities, far less paid vacation (most European countries require 4-6 weeks paid vacation, U.S. requires zero), etc, etc.

Why you do this? You are dishonest, you dont want to help people. We are discussing late XIX century, not the present. In the present the USA is a sort of social-democracy and therefore screews the workers.

You are not going to get away that easy. I would like to know your answer to the fact that the USA pseudo-free-market benefited more the workers than the european proto-social-democracies.

There was a great article in Inc. Magazine (of all places) earlier this year called "In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism"
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

Let me remind you that Norway has a lower corporate tax rate than the USA and a higher tax rate for workers. How is that socialism? You want to be more like Norway so I assume you want to lower taxes for corporations and raise taxes for workers? Defenders of neoliberalism say the northern european countries are an example of neoliberalism.

Bear strikes, darkness, and whale meat notwithstanding, Norway is also an exceedingly pleasant place to make a home. It ranked third in Gallup's latest global happiness survey. The unemployment rate, just 3.5 percent, is the lowest in Europe and one of the lowest in the world. Thanks to a generous social welfare system, poverty is almost nonexistent.

Norway is also full of entrepreneurs like Wiggo Dalmo. Rates of start-up creation here are among the highest in the developed world, and Norway has more entrepreneurs per capita than the United States, according to the latest report by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, a Boston-based research consortium. A 2010 study released by the U.S. Small Business Administration reported a similar result: Although America remains near the top of the world in terms of entrepreneurial aspirations -- that is, the percentage of people who want to start new things—in terms of actual start-up activity, our country has fallen behind not just Norway but also Canada, Denmark, and Switzerland.

[/quote]

Right, if a magazine says it, it must be true. As I said northern european countries are far from socialism. European socialist renegue of them just so you know.

Also, do you know that the northen countries have been moving away from regulations and welfare since the 80's-90's? During that time the socialists were in the government and basically increased welfare driving the countries towards stagnation. People started voting the conservatives and they scale back in welfare and the countries started to grow again. But hey, it must be the welfare that is producing growth if a magazine says it!

And Norway is not a good example since they have lots of petrol. Its easy to do things when you have petrol.

[rainingbitcoins]

Why you do this? You are dishonest, you dont want to help people. We are discussing late XIX century, not the present. In the present the USA is a sort of social-democracy and therefore screews the workers.

Seriously? No, really, seriously? Over the last thirty years, taxes have gone down, union membership has become a thing of the past, and legislators fight tooth and nail to defund any social program they can, and we're "a sort of social democracy".  I saw another thread right here in this forum where Atlas called the U.S. one of the most libertarian countries on Earth.

You are not going to get away that easy. I would like to know your answer to the fact that the USA pseudo-free-market benefited more the workers than the european proto-social-democracies.

Because it didn't. And they weren't. And working conditions in America were so bad that it was literally killing people left and right. That you can hold up the early 20th century as some sort of golden age for American workers shows that the only knowledge of the subject you have at all comes from revisionist historians who love nothing more than to whitewash the sins of big business. Go ahead, read The Jungle. What's the worst that could happen? You have to entertain an alternative viewpoint? You're stuck reading one of the most famous books of the 20th century? I could think of worse punishments.

Let me remind you that Norway has a lower corporate tax rate than the USA and a higher tax rate for workers. How is that socialism? You want to be more like Norway so I assume you want to lower taxes for corporations and raise taxes for workers?

Here you deliberately confuse the stated corporate tax rates with the actual, effective corporate tax rates. Many corporations are making billions and not paying a penny:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110612/BUSINESS/106120371/DuPont-pays-no-tax-3B-profit-s-legal
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110325/ts_yblog_thelookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-on-5-1-billion-in-profits

And corporate taxes as a share of the GDP decreased from 7.2% in 1945 to 1.3% in 2011:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/06/11/us-a-low-tax-country-and-getting-lower/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

Right, if a magazine says it, it must be true.

Inc. Magazine - truly one of the most pervasive spreaders of socialist propaganda in our times. Also, you know, they do cite two sources in just that one little snippet I provided.

As I said northern european countries are far from socialism.

Socialism is often used as shorthand for "social democracy" in modern America because apparently Americans find these things confusing. Actual socialism involves workers controlling the means of production, which clearly isn't the case anywhere in Europe.

[hugolp]

Seriously? No, really, seriously? Over the last thirty years, taxes have gone down, union membership has become a thing of the past, and legislators fight tooth and nail to defund any social program they can, and we're "a sort of social democracy".

You are doing it again. The discussion was about the late XIX century and you are changing it. Its dishonest. But Ill answer anyway:

First, its normal that government unions are going down. Workers are realizing that government unions answer to the ones that pay them: the government, and not to the workers. During the industrialization some workers started to organize and protest, sometimes in very creative ways, to punish the industrialists that were exploiting them by not paying them the free market wage. Some industrialists and their government cronies realized this so they started to organize government unions so they could manage the anger of the workers in a way that was useful to them. That is why they organized government unions, financed by governments and therfore that answer to the politicians and not to the workers.

Its a law of life that the one paying is the one in control. If you have government unions, they will answer to the government. If you have workers unions, they will answer to the workers. Workers are realizing this.

Second, this is the graph of the spending of the USA as a percentage of the GDP. Look at this and tell me the USA is not becoming a social-democracy:



Its almost at european levels.

You are not going to get away that easy. I would like to know your answer to the fact that the USA pseudo-free-market benefited more the workers than the european proto-social-democracies.

Because it didn't.

So now you are denying reality. Check the data. The USA pseudo free market increased wages more than the european proto-social democracies. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.

And they weren't. And working conditions in America were so bad that it was literally killing people left and right. That you can hold up the early 20th century as some sort of golden age for American workers shows that the only knowledge of the subject you have at all comes from revisionist historians who love nothing more than to whitewash the sins of big business. Go ahead, read The Jungle. What's the worst that could happen? You have to entertain an alternative viewpoint? You're stuck reading one of the most famous books of the 20th century? I could think of worse punishments.

Bla, bla, you are brainwashed, bla, bla, you dont understand my enlightment, bla, bla...

I have already said this but here goes again: Yes, during the XIX century conditions were worse than they are today, technology and production has improved. And you know what? During the X century conditions were even worse than during the XIX century. You are being dishonest by trying to compare periods with different technology and conditions. You can not compare them, unless you want to be dishonest.

The fact of the matter is that given the conditions of that time, the USA pseudo free market increased the wages of the workers way more than the european proto social democracies. That is a fact, no matter how hard you try to ignore it so you can keep going on thinking the way you do.

Here you deliberately confuse the stated corporate tax rates with the actual, effective corporate tax rates. Many corporations are making billions and not paying a penny:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110612/BUSINESS/106120371/DuPont-pays-no-tax-3B-profit-s-legal
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110325/ts_yblog_thelookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-on-5-1-billion-in-profits

This happens in Norway too. Its what social democracies do: screew the poor while benefiting the rich. Its political darwinism.

Inc. Magazine - truly one of the most pervasive spreaders of socialist propaganda in our times. Also, you know, they do cite two sources in just that one little snippet I provided.

Do you realize Im not anti-socialist, but in fact regard the socialist ideals as a good thing? Im not a marxian.

[rainingbitcoins]

XIX century

This isn't Rome, you know.

First, its normal that government unions are going down.

I wasn't referring to public sector unions, which have actually increased. Private sector unions are what has drastically decreased. If that's even what you mean by "government unions".

You are being dishonest by trying to compare periods with different technology and conditions. You can not compare them, unless you want to be dishonest.

Hey, great. So let's compare the situation of the poor in modern Europe with how they're doing in modern America, because nowadays we actually have reams of stats and figures to prove who has it better rather than accepting one or the other's interpretation of history. I suggested that on the last page. And I think it's pretty clear who has a better lot.

Do you realize Im not anti-socialist, but in fact regard the socialist ideals as a good thing? Im not a marxian.

Honestly, I don't know what the hell you are. But this thread is about libertarianism supposedly benefitting the poor. Which it clearly does not. Actual socialism would be preferable, IMHO, but hey, you take what's realistic. Leftist ideologies are so demonized and propagandized against in the U.S. that they have no hope of succeeding. And if you're trying to appeal to people who think free markets are some kind of benevolent God, you sure as hell don't come out of the gate quoting Marx!

[AntiVigilante]

And if you're trying to appeal to people who think free markets are some kind of benevolent God, you sure as hell don't come out of the gate quoting Marx!

We are the market. Premise blown.

[hugolp]

This isn't Rome, you know.

And you compalin when I say that you are not being honest? Is this a proper answer for you?

Anyway, Im not interested in discussing with you anymore (as long as you are going to keep deflecting and not really answering).

I wasn't referring to public sector unions, which have actually increased. Private sector unions are what has drastically decreased. If that's even what you mean by "government unions".

By government unions I mean government regulated and/or financed unions.

Hey, great. So let's compare the situation of the poor in modern Europe with how they're doing in modern America, because nowadays we actually have reams of stats and figures to prove who has it better rather than accepting one or the other's interpretation of history. I suggested that on the last page. And I think it's pretty clear who has a better lot.

Again, what this has to do with what I said or with the fact that the USA pseudo-free market of the late XIX century increased the wages of the workers more than the european proto-social democracies? You are being dishonest.

Honestly, I don't know what the hell you are. But this thread is about libertarianism supposedly benefitting the poor. Which it clearly does not. Actual socialism would be preferable, IMHO, but hey, you take what's realistic. Leftist ideologies are so demonized and propagandized against in the U.S. that they have no hope of succeeding. And if you're trying to appeal to people who think free markets are some kind of benevolent God, you sure as hell don't come out of the gate quoting Marx!

This is the funniest part. The authoritarian left receives more corporate money than anyone else and you are complaining that its demonized? Get real please.

Anyway, as I said, Im done until you want to have an honest discussion.

[Basiley]

People don't need government. They need governance.

Well said.

people have what they need. and need what they have.
among other things, thats important too. much more than rich sick alienated fucks can admit/accept/tolerate.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

The first mistake is to believe the government when it claims that its policies are intended to help the poor. They almost never are. The great bulk of redistributive taxation and subsidization goes to benefit interest groups that are politically powerful, not economically vulnerable. Think Medicare, agricultural subsidies, and the mortgage interest deduction.

This is a silly argument-- government actions can have consequences that are unintended-- my wanting to help the rich could in the end, help the poor.

Intentionality is impossible to prove, and quite frankly a stupid thing to critique somebody over.

And most existing regulation of business is, paradoxically enough, for the benefit of business itself. Regulation raises the cost of doing business, and so establishes a barrier to entry that benefits large existing firms at the expense of their smaller competitors. Occupational licensing, for example, whether of doctors, lawyers, or barbers, is almost never forced upon an unwilling industry by public-spirited regulators. Rather, it is actively sought after by established members of the profession itself, eager to insulate themselves against potential competition. And politicians are all-too-willing to cater to the interests of the economically powerful. Libertarians, in contrast, believe in free markets, and truly free markets are the enemy of big business.

What the regulation affects is completely irrelevant to why the regulation is in existence-- the notion that it is for the benefit of businesses is crap.  Once again, to prove what they are doing it for is impossible, and furthermore, it isn't for the benefit of business, free or corporate-- explain to me how government saying that it isn't OK to dump chemicals into the groundwater is beneficial to business: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Cryovac

Lastly, while politicians are willing to cater to the economically powerful, and while corporatism is awful, this entire argument is premised on the idea that under the free market, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Otherwise, the libertarian system isn't a viable one.

Also, why wouldn't corporations exist in a free market? Given all that we have, minus the subsidies, does anybody honestly think that corporations could continue to exist, quite easily, merely through monopoly?

The second mistake is to confuse intentions with results. Even if government policies were intended to benefit the poor, we would have good reason to expect them to fail.

This paragraph is basically a call to inaction -- "since we can't be sure of the outcomes of our actions, we should merely not act at all" is a logical consequence of this line of thought.

Individuals and corporations should reap the benefits of good decisions, and pay the costs themselves when their choices turn out poorly.

Individuals do pay for good decisions and suffer for poor ones, and while corporations do the same, corporations' actions harm others and themselves(the point isn't to reward good and punish bad, the point is to get away from harmful actions with innocent victims). Once again, libertarianism doesn't offer a viable alternative theory, but this time concerning the law, and what we should consider illegal and legal.

Libertarianism is about individual liberty, and while economic liberty is a part of that, it is not the whole.True, libertarians believe that greater economic freedom would benefit the poor,

This ignores the fact that the majority of people will not be free from wage slavery. The vast majority of people do not make 100k+ a year, and a huge amount of people are screwed over by free market and corporatist systems.

Greater economic freedom applies only to those who aren't living paycheck to paycheck. Choices don't exist for the majority of people who are poor-- McDonalds or BK isn't free choice.

But if effective state assistance is a chimera, then this choice is a false one. Indeed, if state power is almost always used to serve the powerful at the expense of the poor, then our real choice is clear. The single most effective way that we can help the vulnerable is to stop hurting them. We might owe them more, but the first and most important thing we owe the poor is liberty.

This is the funniest thing I've read in awhile-- libertarians, if helping the poor is to be a litmus test by which to judge your system, you have no viable alternative.
Liberty will not help to feed those who are hungry, nor will it house those who are homeless. If we're talking in pure utilitarian terms, there is no ethical way to justify libertarianism.

The article, like your system, is a joke.

[AntiVigilante]

The first mistake is to believe the government when it claims that its policies are intended to help the poor. They almost never are. The great bulk of redistributive taxation and subsidization goes to benefit interest groups that are politically powerful, not economically vulnerable. Think Medicare, agricultural subsidies, and the mortgage interest deduction.

This is a silly argument-- government actions can have consequences that are unintended-- my wanting to help the rich could in the end, help the poor.

Intentionality is impossible to prove, and quite frankly a stupid thing to critique somebody over.

O.o

Actions? What actions? We're talking about the flow of money. Actions are a sales pitch.

The intention is to not help the poor but to fill their pockets with the product of your good will and gullibility.

And most existing regulation of business is, paradoxically enough, for the benefit of business itself. Regulation raises the cost of doing business, and so establishes a barrier to entry that benefits large existing firms at the expense of their smaller competitors. Occupational licensing, for example, whether of doctors, lawyers, or barbers, is almost never forced upon an unwilling industry by public-spirited regulators. Rather, it is actively sought after by established members of the profession itself, eager to insulate themselves against potential competition. And politicians are all-too-willing to cater to the interests of the economically powerful. Libertarians, in contrast, believe in free markets, and truly free markets are the enemy of big business.

What the regulation affects is completely irrelevant to why the regulation is in existence

Your sir are a rhetorical pedantic fleecing opportunity. There is no such thing as why. There is only how. The why is your job and mine to take care of. Only when we the people act, does any action manifest.

Lastly, while politicians are willing to cater to the economically powerful, and while corporatism is awful, this entire argument is premised on the idea that under the free market, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Otherwise, the libertarian system isn't a viable one.

It wouldn't happen in a market where a guy with $5 in his pocket could participate to a serious degree of influence.

Also, why wouldn't corporations exist in a free market? Given all that we have, minus the subsidies, does anybody honestly think that corporations could continue to exist, quite easily, merely through monopoly?

Because people would be offering their own wares and ignoring them. It's not a question of controls. It's a question of the willingness of communities to put up a fight. Corporations exist because we want someone else to deal with the problem.

This paragraph is basically a call to inaction -- "since we can't be sure of the outcomes of our actions, we should merely not act at all" is a logical consequence of this line of thought.

Government is not action. People forming discussion groups and agreeing on their interests is action.

This ignores the fact that the majority of people will not be free from wage slavery. The vast majority of people do not make 100k+ a year, and a huge amount of people are screwed over by free market and corporatist systems.

So um... step up to the... plate.

This is the funniest thing I've read in awhile-- libertarians, if helping the poor is to be a litmus test by which to judge your system, you have no viable alternative.
Liberty will not help to feed those who are hungry, nor will it house those who are homeless. If we're talking in pure utilitarian terms, there is no ethical way to justify libertarianism.

The article, like your system, is a joke.

Systems do not help people. People help people.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

The first mistake is to believe the government when it claims that its policies are intended to help the poor. They almost never are. The great bulk of redistributive taxation and subsidization goes to benefit interest groups that are politically powerful, not economically vulnerable. Think Medicare, agricultural subsidies, and the mortgage interest deduction.

This is a silly argument-- government actions can have consequences that are unintended-- my wanting to help the rich could in the end, help the poor.

Intentionality is impossible to prove, and quite frankly a stupid thing to critique somebody over.

O.o

Actions? What actions? We're talking about the flow of money. Actions are a sales pitch.

The intention is to not help the poor but to fill their pockets with the product of your good will and gullibility.

There is no difference between helping them, and giving them money. All cases of responsibly giving them money is a case of helping them.

And policies are actions. This isn't that difficult to comprehend.

And most existing regulation of business is, paradoxically enough, for the benefit of business itself. Regulation raises the cost of doing business, and so establishes a barrier to entry that benefits large existing firms at the expense of their smaller competitors. Occupational licensing, for example, whether of doctors, lawyers, or barbers, is almost never forced upon an unwilling industry by public-spirited regulators. Rather, it is actively sought after by established members of the profession itself, eager to insulate themselves against potential competition. And politicians are all-too-willing to cater to the interests of the economically powerful. Libertarians, in contrast, believe in free markets, and truly free markets are the enemy of big business.

What the regulation affects is completely irrelevant to why the regulation is in existence

Your sir are a rhetorical pedantic fleecing opportunity. There is no such thing as why. There is only how. The why is your job and mine to take care of. Only when we the people act, does any action manifest.

For the 1st sentence to be true, we'd have to be philosophical zombies. Even if you are, there is no doubt in my mind that I have "why"s. Also, calling me a name and insisting that what I'm talking about doesn't exist isn't a good argumentative strategy-- you've proven nothing.

Lastly, while politicians are willing to cater to the economically powerful, and while corporatism is awful, this entire argument is premised on the idea that under the free market, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Otherwise, the libertarian system isn't a viable one.

It wouldn't happen in a market where a guy with $5 in his pocket could participate to a serious degree of influence.

Except he can't, and wouldn't be able to, even under a libertarian system. One Vote =One person is all well and good, but not good policymaking when people fetishize money and those who have it.

Also, why wouldn't corporations exist in a free market? Given all that we have, minus the subsidies, does anybody honestly think that corporations could continue to exist, quite easily, merely through monopoly?

Because people would be offering their own wares and ignoring them. It's not a question of controls. It's a question of the willingness of communities to put up a fight. Corporations exist because we want someone else to deal with the problem.

They exist in our current system because of subsidies, but would exist in a libertarian system because of monopolies. The causal relationship you put forward  doesn't make sense. "If only they would fight against corporations" is nice, but not actually going to happen-- if the majority of people are more concerned about their own pocketbook(as libertarianism would encourage), then there is no point in any other calculus besides "what is the best deal?" Once again, libertarianism doesn't provide a viable solution.

This paragraph is basically a call to inaction -- "since we can't be sure of the outcomes of our actions, we should merely not act at all" is a logical consequence of this line of thought.

Government is not action. People forming discussion groups and agreeing on their interests is action.

People forming a discussion group, and agreeing on their interests is a form of governance.

Also, what you just said, once again, isn't responsive.

This ignores the fact that the majority of people will not be free from wage slavery. The vast majority of people do not make 100k+ a year, and a huge amount of people are screwed over by free market and corporatist systems.

So um... step up to the... plate.

My point was the following-- libertarianism isn't a viable alternative.

This is the funniest thing I've read in awhile-- libertarians, if helping the poor is to be a litmus test by which to judge your system, you have no viable alternative.
Liberty will not help to feed those who are hungry, nor will it house those who are homeless. If we're talking in pure utilitarian terms, there is no ethical way to justify libertarianism.

The article, like your system, is a joke.

Systems do not help people. People help people.

can you please go ahead and defend libertarianism? I've given concrete examples wherein it would fail, and you've done pretty much nothing to refute them

Btw, the systems not needing people is nonsense-- political systems don't exist w/o people.

[AntiVigilante]

There is no difference between helping them, and giving them money.

This is ridiculous on its face.

All cases of responsibly giving them money is a case of helping them.

Getting skilled people is helping. Giving money to flood victims is not helping.

And policies are actions. This isn't that difficult to comprehend.

Policies are pieces of paper. Offering someone room and board is action.

For the 1st sentence to be true, we'd have to be philosophical zombies. Even if you are, there is no doubt in my mind that I have "why"s. Also, calling me a name and insisting that what I'm talking about doesn't exist isn't a good argumentative strategy-- you've proven nothing.

Why is vaporware. How is actual delivered product.

Except he can't, and wouldn't be able to, even under a libertarian system.

I'll take him there and represent my fellow man's interests.

One Vote =One person is all well and good, but not good policymaking when people fetishize money and those who have it.

As opposed to sitting on your ass fetishizing systems?

They exist in our current system because of subsidies, but would exist in a libertarian system because of monopolies. The causal relationship you put forward  doesn't make sense. "If only they would fight against corporations" is nice, but not actually going to happen

Subsidies come from the system. The only usefulness of a system to the people is to prevent a power vacuum.

As for communities standing up. Operation Empire State Rebellion.

-- if the majority of people are more concerned about their own pocketbook(as libertarianism would encourage), then there is no point in any other calculus besides "what is the best deal?" Once again, libertarianism doesn't provide a viable solution.

Who the hell cares what a bunch of lazy couch monkeys would or wouldn't do? A bitcoin has no value until you trade it. The inaction of those who won't act is only an inconvenience. And determined individuals can make up for lacking in numbers by working harder.

People forming a discussion group, and agreeing on their interests is a form of governance.

Also, what you just said, once again, isn't responsive.

People forming ad hoc groups is not governance. It's problem solving. People forming permanent groups is somewhat like governance. There's not really that big of a need for permanent groups just seasonal councils convened and dissolved.

My point was the following-- libertarianism isn't a viable alternative.

No system is. Roll up your sleeves.

can you please go ahead and defend libertarianism? I've given concrete examples wherein it would fail, and you've done pretty much nothing to refute them

I don't need to defend anything. I'm promoting self-reliance and autonomous convergence of individuals. Your arguments against libertarianism are based in spending too much time behind a desk.

Btw, the systems not needing people is nonsense-- political systems don't exist w/o people.

Did you actually read what I said?

Systems don't help people. I never said systems don't need people. Hell, I'd say the fact that they need people makes the system redundant. You're so fixated on a particular mode of problem solving you can't even read what people say.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

There is no difference between helping them, and giving them money.

This is ridiculous on its face.

All cases of responsibly giving them money is a case of helping them.

Getting skilled people is helping. Giving money to flood victims is not helping.

And policies are actions. This isn't that difficult to comprehend.

Policies are pieces of paper. Offering someone room and board is action.

For the 1st sentence to be true, we'd have to be philosophical zombies. Even if you are, there is no doubt in my mind that I have "why"s. Also, calling me a name and insisting that what I'm talking about doesn't exist isn't a good argumentative strategy-- you've proven nothing.

Why is vaporware. How is actual delivered product.

Except he can't, and wouldn't be able to, even under a libertarian system.

I'll take him there and represent my fellow man's interests.

One Vote =One person is all well and good, but not good policymaking when people fetishize money and those who have it.

As opposed to sitting on your ass fetishizing systems?

They exist in our current system because of subsidies, but would exist in a libertarian system because of monopolies. The causal relationship you put forward  doesn't make sense. "If only they would fight against corporations" is nice, but not actually going to happen

Subsidies come from the system. The only usefulness of a system to the people is to prevent a power vacuum.

As for communities standing up. Operation Empire State Rebellion.

-- if the majority of people are more concerned about their own pocketbook(as libertarianism would encourage), then there is no point in any other calculus besides "what is the best deal?" Once again, libertarianism doesn't provide a viable solution.

Who the hell cares what a bunch of lazy couch monkeys would or wouldn't do? A bitcoin has no value until you trade it. The inaction of those who won't act is only an inconvenience. And determined individuals can make up for lacking in numbers by working harder.

People forming a discussion group, and agreeing on their interests is a form of governance.

Also, what you just said, once again, isn't responsive.

People forming ad hoc groups is not governance. It's problem solving. People forming permanent groups is somewhat like governance. There's not really that big of a need for permanent groups just seasonal councils convened and dissolved.

My point was the following-- libertarianism isn't a viable alternative.

No system is. Roll up your sleeves.

can you please go ahead and defend libertarianism? I've given concrete examples wherein it would fail, and you've done pretty much nothing to refute them

I don't need to defend anything. I'm promoting self-reliance and autonomous convergence of individuals. Your arguments against libertarianism are based in spending too much time behind a desk.

Btw, the systems not needing people is nonsense-- political systems don't exist w/o people.

Did you actually read what I said?

Systems don't help people. I never said systems don't need people. Hell, I'd say the fact that they need people makes the system redundant. You're so fixated on a particular mode of problem solving you can't even read what people say.

In This Post: Ad hom attacks, nothing constructive, relevant, responsive, or important.

any relationship between people is inherently a system by definition.

Also, I'm beginning to think you're either high, drunk, stupid, troll, or mentally disabled. I can't figure out which(But I'm going with troll for the pure unresponsiveness of your post).

[LokeRundt]

I highly recommend a read through Kevin  Carson's "Organization Theory", especially for those of you claiming that free-market = corporatism

[EnterpriseE1701E]

I highly recommend a read through Kevin  Carson's "Organization Theory", especially for those of you claiming that free-market = corporatism

I'd rather not buy the book of an anarcho-capitalist hack(redundant)? Just summarize the argument(s) here and I'll show why you're wrong.

Btw, if this is the same guy that is an anarcho-capitalist while simultaneously misusing the word capitalist, I will literally laugh out loud. Anarcho-capitalism is, at best, a misunderstanding.

[myrkul]

I highly recommend a read through Kevin  Carson's "Organization Theory", especially for those of you claiming that free-market = corporatism

I'd rather not buy the book of an anarcho-capitalist hack(redundant)? Just summarize the argument(s) here and I'll show why you're wrong.

Btw, if this is the same guy that is an anarcho-capitalist while simultaneously misusing the word capitalist, I will literally laugh out loud. Anarcho-capitalism is, at best, a misunderstanding.

No need to buy it, It's free. (30 second google search, 3rd link.)

[EnterpriseE1701E]

I highly recommend a read through Kevin  Carson's "Organization Theory", especially for those of you claiming that free-market = corporatism

I'd rather not buy the book of an anarcho-capitalist hack(redundant)? Just summarize the argument(s) here and I'll show why you're wrong.

Btw, if this is the same guy that is an anarcho-capitalist while simultaneously misusing the word capitalist, I will literally laugh out loud. Anarcho-capitalism is, at best, a misunderstanding.

No need to buy it, It's free. (30 second google search, 3rd link.)

Fine, I misworded that. Buy should've been buy/read.

I'm not going to read ~650+ pages on a subject which I think I already know the answer to: free markets want efficiency, corporations aren't efficient, corporations will cease to exist.

Two good reasons why this is nonsense-- if government is totally inefficient, and only efficient systems will survive, why does government survive?
I'll answer my own question-- it is because humans aren't rational actors, and there are other competing, and sometimes winning factors besides efficiency.

Other reason: The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

Microsoft.

Anything else?