This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man.

[lemonginger]

Have you read up on Libertarian punishment theory?

A bit. I get the initiation and escalation of force arguments. I thought you were making the argument in your post to AyeYo that you thought you had the right to do whatever you wanted to "protect your stuff".

[1714669537]

1714669537

[1714669537]

1714669537

[1714669537]

1714669537

[1714669537]

1714669537

[1714669537]

1714669537

[NghtRppr]

Have you read up on Libertarian punishment theory?

A bit. I get the initiation and escalation of force arguments. I thought you were making the argument in your post to AyeYo that you thought you had the right to do whatever you wanted to "protect your stuff".

I'm not sure how you got that idea but hopefully the misunderstanding has been resolved.

[lemonginger]

I'd prefer peaceful means but if you touch me or my property, you do so at your own peril.

Sounds a bit threatening.

[AntiVigilante]

http://absurdresults.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/obama-stop-the-rise-of-the-machines/

...is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers . . . . If you see it when you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller.

This reminds me of time when people were against lightbulbs because it would put candle workers out of business. I'm sorry you would prefer unskilled production over skilled technicians building our new tomorrow. However, I cannot empathize with your will to destroy wealth creation by making less efficient businesses in the name of putting more people to work in practically useless jobs. You don't like humanity, you don't like meeting needs, you just like putting numbers on paper.

I cannot believe any rational man would nearly advocate the dissolution of technology and wealth in the name of just pure numbers employment. It sickens me.

People prefer to be bound in commoditized labor than to negotiate work and build relationships. Labor is mass produced homogenized slices of work. Pitiful suckers.

Stopping the rise of machines is not going to initiate the rise of mankind.

Except I'm not convinced he's doing it for socialist reasons. I really think he's the bankers' inside man pulling a Scott Walker fire sale on the whole economy.

Democrats will break your machines. Republicans will sell your fundamental infrastructure for pennies. Same result.

[AyeYo]

I'm being forced under threat of violence to conform to a society whose rules I do not agree with and whose "coercive" market forces (your definition, not the real one) affect my daily life even though I do not agree with the policies that created them - just like you living in our current society.

The only thing you're being forced to do is keep your paws off of other people and their stuff.

Completely false.  See all previous posts.

[benjamindees]

Completely false.  See all previous posts.

At least two of us asked you for a specific example several pages ago, and I'm yet to see one...

[AyeYo]

Completely false.  See all previous posts.

At least two of us asked you for a specific example several pages ago, and I'm yet to see one...

Already addressed, see previous posts.


This will be the last time I repeat myself before I chalk your unwillingness to answer up to nothing more than a cop out because you don't have an answer.

That's completely untrue.  I'm being forced under threat of violence to conform to a society whose rules I do not agree with and whose "coercive" market forces (your definition, not the real one) affect my daily life even though I do not agree with the policies that created them - just like you living in our current society.

Care to present an actual example of this?

An actual example of what?  The fact that, if defined as you people define it, ANY system of social contruction is "coercive" to those that do not 100% agree with it and ALL are enforced under threat of violence to one extent or another?

I'm not sure which part of that you're having a difficult time wrapping your mind around.  Perhaps it's because you think Liberland would be a flawless utopia that no person could do anything but love with all their heart.

If you really can't stretch your mind even the slightest bit, this snipet from a blog I read recently sums up the issue pretty well...

A market economy is the collective sum of the decisions of individuals. This affects other individuals, including those who do not want to be subjected to market outcomes. The market is coercive. But the word “coercion” to a libertarian can only refer to coercion by the state that doesn’t involve protecting property.

Now, try hard, using my previous posts, if necessary, in which I've had to repeat myself at least five times, to understand the simple 1 + 1 = 2 going on here.


EDIT:

Just noticed this post, in which the issue is summarized even better:

but it still doesn't chance the fact of the argument that basing a society around an atomistic view of the individual and individual rights as well as strong and exclusive property rights rests on axiomatic assumptions that people have to agree to (or be forced to agree to) which was my original point and at least part of AyeYo's point (I think they want to make other points as well, so I won't speak for them)

[benjamindees]

Seriously, just continuing to repeat your assertion that libertarianism is coercive without actually giving a specific example of coercion is an utterly shite argument.  You're convincing no one.

You might as well blame libertarianism for gravity and the tides if "the market is coercive" is the best you can come up with.

[NghtRppr]

I'd prefer peaceful means but if you touch me or my property, you do so at your own peril.

Sounds a bit threatening.

I'm threatening to defend myself and my property.

I'm being forced under threat of violence to conform to a society whose rules I do not agree with and whose "coercive" market forces (your definition, not the real one) affect my daily life even though I do not agree with the policies that created them - just like you living in our current society.

The only thing you're being forced to do is keep your paws off of other people and their stuff.

Completely false.  See all previous posts.

What else are you forced to do that doesn't logically follow from keeping your hands off of other people and their stuff? Please be specific.

[AyeYo]

Seriously, just continuing to repeat your assertion that libertarianism is coercive without actually giving a specific example of coercion is an utterly shite argument.  You're convincing no one.

You might as well blame libertarianism for gravity and the tides if "the market is coercive" is the best you can come up with.

Just keep reading it over and over and over again until it sinks in.  There's no need for me to repost it because it's already on this page.  If you just can't wrap your mind around it... well... that's probably 90% of the reason you're a libertarian.


Flex those tiny brain muscles.  This is as straight forward and simply to understand as it gets.  All it requires is that you apply your beliefs equally to all systems of society, including your own fantastical utopia.

"The argument for laissez-faire capitalism is built on a contradictory view of liberty. Right-wing libertarians understand that state control of all economic activity is tyrannical: that the power to determine if and how people make a living is the power to enforce conformity. But they don't see that the huge transnational corporations that own and control most of the world's wealth exercise a parallel tyranny: not only do these behemoths unilaterally determine qualifications, wages, hours, and working conditions for millions of workers, who (if they're lucky) may "choose" from a highly restricted menu of jobs or "choose" to stop eating; they make production, investment and lending decisions that profoundly affect the economic, social, and political landscape of communities and indeed entire countries -- decisions in which the great majority of people affected have little or no voice. Murray defines economic freedom as "the right to engage in voluntary and informed exchanges of goods and services without restriction." Fine -- but if an economic transaction is to be truly voluntary and informed, all parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or influence its terms, as well as equal access to information. Can anyone claim that corporate employers and employees have equal power to negotiate their exchange? Or that consumers have full access to information about the products they buy? And if we're really interested in freedom, the right to voluntary and informed engagement in economic transactions has to be extended beyond their principals to others affected -- whether by plants that reduce air quality or rent increases that chase out shoe repair shops in favor of coffee bars. The inconsistency of the belief that economic domination by the state destroys freedom, while economic domination by capital somehow enhances it, is often rationalized by attributing the self-interested decisions of the corporate elite to objective, immutable principles like "the invisible hand" or "supply and demand" -- just as state tyranny has claimed to embody the laws of God or History. But the real animating principle of a free society is democracy -- which should include a democratic economy based on enterprises owned and controlled by their workers."
-Ellen Willis

[NghtRppr]

if an economic transaction is to be truly voluntary and informed, all parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or influence its terms, as well as equal access to information

The problem is that you're conflating "voluntary" and "informed" as if those were inseparable. As far as the law is concerned, it's only the voluntary part of the issue that should be enforced. We need to be protected from force and fraud. But let's say that I know where to buy X for $5 and you only know where to buy X for $7. It may or may not be immoral to exploit your ignorance and sell you X for $6 but I'm not taking a side on that issue because it's irrelevant to the issue of legality. Also, let's say that I'm the only one that knows how to get Y which is in high demand and therefore gives me a natural monopoly. I start charging $1,000 for Y because you'll pay it even though it only costs me $1 to obtain Y. You can't influence the terms equally but it's still my Y and therefore you can either pay the price or do without. It may or may not be immoral to gouge you on the price but again, that's irrelevant to the issue of legality. In both cases, X and Y, everything is still voluntary because I'm not physically forcing you to do business with me nor am I physically preventing you from doing business with anyone else.

Like I asked before, what else are you forced to do under threat of violence that doesn't logically follow from physically forcing you to keep your hands off of other people and their stuff? If you can't name anything, this debate is over.

[Anonymous]

To protect all people from ignorance would require the enslavement of people to teach the incompetent. Hardly a rational solution.

[AyeYo]

if an economic transaction is to be truly voluntary and informed, all parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or influence its terms, as well as equal access to information

The problem is that you're conflating voluntary and informed as if those were inseparable.

They are inseparable.  You cannot volunteer for something if you do not fully understand what you're volunteering for.  It's contract law 101.  This is exactly why you doctor must explain all possible negative outcomes to you before you agree to have surgery.  This is why we have satutory rape laws.  This is why we have an age of majority.  This is why intentionally misleading or miscommunicated contracts are void.

Once again you prove my point that you're only interested in your brand of freedom that applies only to the people you see fit to care about.

[MoonShadow]

This seems like a good place to leave this...

http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/humans-born-capitalists.html

[AyeYo]

This seems like a good place to leave this...

http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/humans-born-capitalists.html

Copping out again, aye?

[NghtRppr]

You cannot volunteer for something if you do not fully understand what you're volunteering for.

I agree with you there but you're misapplying that maxim. If I tell you that I'm selling X for $6 then you are volunteering to buy X for $6. As long as it's actually X and actually $6, it's voluntary. However, if I bait and switch you, that's not voluntary. That's fraud. I mentioned in my previous post that fraud is completely unacceptable.

Where we seem to disagree is that you think failing to disclose that I bought X for $5 and sold it for $6, or telling you where to buy it cheaper, is somehow fraud. Your doctor analogy isn't applicable because there's nothing I'm physically doing to harm you, unlike informing you about a risky surgery so you can give informed consent.

The good news is that at least we are having an actual disagreement now instead of hurling insults and personal attacks.

Once again you prove my point that you're only interested in your brand of freedom that applies only to the people you see fit to care about.

Damn, I spoke too soon. I'm not sure what you think you gain from these personal attacks. I'm either right or I'm wrong. You should be able to explain why based on evidence and reason. Saying that "you don't care about other people" or "you're just a big old meanie" adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. It's just noise. If you want to vent your frustration, go squeeze a stress ball.

Please, let's keep this academic, thanks.

[LokeRundt]

http://absurdresults.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/obama-stop-the-rise-of-the-machines/

...is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers . . . . If you see it when you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller.

This reminds me of time when people were against lightbulbs because it would put candle workers out of business. I'm sorry you would prefer unskilled production over skilled technicians building our new tomorrow.

But bitcoin. . . .you think ATM's put tellers out of business?  You ain't seen nothin' yet

[AyeYo]

You cannot volunteer for something if you do not fully understand what you're volunteering for.

I agree with you there but you're misapplying that maxim. If I tell you that I'm selling X for $6 then you are volunteering to buy X for $6. As long as it's actually X and actually $6, it's voluntary. However, if I bait and switch you, that's not voluntary. That's fraud. I mentioned in my previous post that fraud is completely unacceptable.

Where we seem to disagree is that you think failing to disclose that I bought X for $5 and sold it for $6, or telling you where to buy it cheaper, is somehow fraud. Your doctor analogy isn't applicable because there's nothing I'm physically doing to harm you, unlike informing you about a risky surgery so you can give informed consent.

Again you make a completely unrelated and irrelevant example in an attempt to reconcile the inconsistency of the your belief system.


Real world example #1:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, the consumer has no idea that Company A is a gross polluter and Company B doesn't pollute at all.  That blows this entire idea of "the market will work everything out" right out of the water, and also shows how what you don't know can hurt you.  Uninformed consumers and citizens cannot make truly voluntary decisions because they have no idea where their dollar is going.


Real world example #2:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, BOTH Company A and Company B are gross polluters.  There are no other companies in the industry.  Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry. 


Real world example #3:

AIG et.al. create complex, dangerous finanical instruments.  They market them as something they are not (lack of disclosure due to no regulation, strike one) and sell these instruments to investors as "safe" investments.  The investments aren't safe, but the investors don't know that (access to information disparity, strike two).  These "safe" investments go bust and take down the entire world's economy.  The decisions of just a handful of corporate executives negatively impacted the majority of the developed world's population who had absolutely no say in the decision making, but nevertheless suffered the consequences (the actions of a few affect the lives of many, strike three).

[NghtRppr]

Uninformed consumers and citizens cannot make truly voluntary decisions because they have no idea where their dollar is going.

It doesn't matter where the money is going unless that's part of the agreement. I hope you understand the difference between "I'll buy that watch from you" and "I'll buy that watch from you but only if that watch wasn't made by Chinese orphans". If you agree to the former then it's irrelevant who made the watch, it's still voluntary. If you agree to the later then it's fraud if it is the case that the watch was made by Chinese orphans.

Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry.

Emphasis mine.

Having a limited choice of alternatives is not the same thing as being forced to pick one of those alternatives rather than another. You might be "forced" to rape a woman or go without sex tonight but it's still a voluntary choice to rape or not rape.

They market them as something they are not (lack of disclosure due to no regulation, strike one) and sell these instruments to investors as "safe" investments.

Then that's fraud, which I'm against. That's not an argument against my position. If I say my watches are made in the USA but are really made by Chinese orphans, that's fraud. If I say my investments are safe but they're not, that's fraud.

So, you still haven't met my challenge. Give me an example of anything you are forced to do under threat of physical violence other than keep your hands off of other people and their property.

[benjamindees]

Oh, I get it now.  AyeYo doesn't actually understand the difference between force and the initiation of force.