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

[AyeYo]

No.  And to say it requires capable government is laughable, because free market capitalism is all about castrating government until it's doing literally nothing other than guaranteeing profits for the capitalists.

It requires a government capable of resisting the efforts of capitalists to thwart sensible restrictions on the initiation of force.  I don't see what's so difficult about that concept.

Because that's goes against the libertarian idea that capitalism is the purest form of perfect, ever, and needs absolutely no intervention for any government at all.  If you're admitting that capitalism needs a government to keep it reined in in order for it to be sustainable, then you're agreeing with my point of view and you just blew everything libertarians believe out of the water.

[1714038055]

1714038055

[1714038055]

1714038055

[MoonShadow]

No.  And to say it requires capable government is laughable, because free market capitalism is all about castrating government until it's doing literally nothing other than guaranteeing profits for the capitalists.

It requires a government capable of resisting the efforts of capitalists to thwart sensible restrictions on the initiation of force.  I don't see what's so difficult about that concept.

Because that's goes against the libertarian idea that capitalism is the purest form of perfect, ever, and needs absolutely no intervention for any government at all.  If you're admitting that capitalism needs a government to keep it reined in in order for it to be sustainable, then you're agreeing with my point of view and you just blew everything libertarians believe out of the water.

Libertarians don't believe in Capitalism as you understand it.  Libertarians believe in liberty, which naturally leads to the free exchange of goods, services and ideas.  What you consider to be capitalism is really corporatism, a softer form of fascism.  Capitalism can be both an ideology and a collective description of a set of naturally occuring economic conditions.  It's the latter form of capitalism that libertarians tend to advocate, and the former we tend to be wary of.

[benjamindees]

Because that's goes against the libertarian idea that capitalism is the purest form of perfect, ever, and needs absolutely no intervention for any government at all.

This assertion doesn't even describe most capitalists, let alone libertarians.  Bullets and neutron bombs can constitute extremely productive forms of capital.  But most capitalists support restrictions on their use.  Libertarianism itself is totally based on condemning and preventing the initiation of force.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that libertarians are against all intervention whatsoever.  They are merely opposed to the types of insanely harmful regulations that we see here in this thread, proposed by lunatic social democrats.

[AyeYo]

No.  And to say it requires capable government is laughable, because free market capitalism is all about castrating government until it's doing literally nothing other than guaranteeing profits for the capitalists.

It requires a government capable of resisting the efforts of capitalists to thwart sensible restrictions on the initiation of force.  I don't see what's so difficult about that concept.

Because that's goes against the libertarian idea that capitalism is the purest form of perfect, ever, and needs absolutely no intervention for any government at all.  If you're admitting that capitalism needs a government to keep it reined in in order for it to be sustainable, then you're agreeing with my point of view and you just blew everything libertarians believe out of the water.

Libertarians don't believe in Capitalism as you understand it.  Libertarians believe in liberty, which naturally leads to the free exchange of goods, services and ideas.  What you consider to be capitalism is really corporatism, a softer form of fascism.  Capitalism can be both an ideology and a collective description of a set of naturally occuring economic conditions.  It's the latter form of capitalism that libertarians tend to advocate, and the former we tend to be wary of.

I understand that.  But do I really need to point out the inconsistency of you considering capitalism to be naturally occuring economic conditions... and then saying it takes a capable government to control in order to be sustainable?


Gravity is a naturally occuring condition, and it takes no government or person to harness it in order for it to be sustainable.


Capitalism != natural economic occurances no matter how you want to define it.  If it was naturally occuring then it would need no intervention to be sustainable.  Economics is a constantly changing field that's got different theories for each day of the year and then some.  There is no one set of "right" or "default" economic conditions and rules - there are merely a limitless number of ideas how things work.  Therefore, if you're going to sit there and tell me that you've figured out the natural economic system, then I'm going to label you as a typical Chicago School boy that worships Friedman, because he's the only one that believed in the existence of a perfect, naturally occuring economic system called capitalism.

If it walks, talks, and acts like a duck...

[benjamindees]

I have a duck in my back yard.  And he's telling me that you need to slow down and re-consider your assumptions.

[AyeYo]

I have a duck in my back yard.  And he's telling me that you need to slow down and re-consider your assumptions.

Honestly man, I've doing the libertarian debate thing for literally years on opencarry.org.  The belief system is inherently flawed and contradictory.  I know full well what the proclaimed beliefs are, but I also know where the chips fall when the rubber actually meets the road.

[NghtRppr]

I'm certainly not an apologist for big business. I'm an apologist for voluntary human transactions i.e. not being forced by threat of violence to do something. If you don't want to work for Megacorp Inc. then don't. Start your own business, work for a small business or go live off the land.

You obviously didn't read beyond the first paragraph.

I did, and the irony of it all is that the very 'vulgarus' he was complaining about was correct.  Although the rates that taco bell was offering was provablely low, they were still higher then the next presently available alternative, which happened to be subsistance farming.  As crappy as that work was, and as poorly as Taco Bell may have paid, those who worked there did so by their own free will.  They were not forced to do so.  If they had been, then it would have been real slavery, which is unacceptable.  But they weren't.  It's just that the job market in their area and with their skillset sucked.  If you wanted to help these people out, then start another factory nearby.  Offer better jobs for higher wages, and Taco Bell would have no choice but to pay more or close house.

Now proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you didn't read more than the first paragraph.

You're talking to two different people. For someone complaining about others not reading that's, kind of ironic. Anyways, the system that's being described isn't anarcho-capitalism or Libertarianism. It's fascism.

In a truly Libertarian society, you couldn't use government violence and you couldn't seize large chunks of resources without earning them. You would have to homestead, which is a process that requires some kind of work. In other words, in a Libertarian society, everyone earns what they own. If I own something then I don't owe you anything. I can offer you the use of my capital under my terms and you can accept it or reject it.

[benjamindees]

Yeah well I've been a libertarian since before the internet existed.  And I'm perfectly aware of the contradictory views of some libertarians.  So please just try to address the issues presented.  Because at the moment you're conflating my responses with those of MoonShadow, and just throwing out spray-fire of anti-capitalist nonsense instead of making any rational points.

You're also conflating a sustainable system with a just system.  Capitalism is derived from the facts of nature.  Natural resources are limited.  Human stupidity is infinite.  Yet it is not inherently just or particularly equitable without some additional considerations.  It would be perfectly sustainable, for instance, for 50% of the world's population to just be periodically marched off to die in war, or to instate a global one-child policy, or forced labor camps or what have you.  These systems are not, however, particularly just.

So there are considerations beyond just unfettered capitalism and sustainability;  there are reasonable restrictions that even most ardent capitalists agree are beneficial.  For instance, a power plant produces electricity which can benefit everyone, but it also produces pollution which can do harm.  The common aim of sustainability, libertarianism, and even capitalism, is to identify and quantify the harm, and to mitigate or prevent it without also destroying the benefit.

Thirdly, you're conflating capable government with big government.  Libertarians tend to believe that self-government is the most effective form of regulation.  That's not necessarily true.  But it's certainly a limiting case.  So you may assume "capable government" to be a utopian fantasy.  But ultimately governments can be replaced when they fail to meet the most basic requirements of those governed.

[MoonShadow]

No.  And to say it requires capable government is laughable, because free market capitalism is all about castrating government until it's doing literally nothing other than guaranteeing profits for the capitalists.

It requires a government capable of resisting the efforts of capitalists to thwart sensible restrictions on the initiation of force.  I don't see what's so difficult about that concept.

Because that's goes against the libertarian idea that capitalism is the purest form of perfect, ever, and needs absolutely no intervention for any government at all.  If you're admitting that capitalism needs a government to keep it reined in in order for it to be sustainable, then you're agreeing with my point of view and you just blew everything libertarians believe out of the water.

Libertarians don't believe in Capitalism as you understand it.  Libertarians believe in liberty, which naturally leads to the free exchange of goods, services and ideas.  What you consider to be capitalism is really corporatism, a softer form of fascism.  Capitalism can be both an ideology and a collective description of a set of naturally occuring economic conditions.  It's the latter form of capitalism that libertarians tend to advocate, and the former we tend to be wary of.

I understand that.  But do I really need to point out the inconsistency of you considering capitalism to be naturally occuring economic conditions... and then saying it takes a capable government to control in order to be sustainable?

First, I didn't say that.  Second, libertarians are not anarchists.  We have a strict set of tasks that a good government should perform.  One of which is to protect the individual citizen from theft, fraud, etc.  Most of us accept teh premise that industries that profit from collective activities (i.e. governments) are also logicly subject to oversight.  Our problem is that it never seems to end there.

Gravity is a naturally occuring condition, and it takes no government or person to harness it in order for it to be sustainable.

A truly free market needs no government oversight, but when a government participates in the market as either an overseer or a customer, it then distorts said free market so that it is no longer truly free.

Capitalism != natural economic occurances no matter how you want to define it.  If it was naturally occuring then it would need no intervention to be sustainable.  Economics is a constantly changing field that's got different theories for each day of the year and then some.  There is no one set of "right" or "default" economic conditions and rules - there are merely a limitless number of ideas how things work.  Therefore, if you're going to sit there and tell me that you've figured out the natural economic system, then I'm going to label you as a typical Chicago School boy that worships Friedman, because he's the only one that believed in the existence of a perfect, naturally occuring economic system called capitalism.

If it walks, talks, and acts like a duck...

There are, in fact, a set of natural laws that can be discovered by human reason.  I shouldn't even have to prove this, but I could.  They, however, can be boiled down into 19 English words, and are called "Maybury's Two Laws" or the "Two Laws of Civilization".  They were coined by Rich Maybury in his book, Whatever Happened to Justice?  They are as follows...

1)  Do all that you have agreed to do and...

2)  Do not encroach upon the person or property of another.

All natural, or 'common', laws flowed from this deep rooted concept of fairness.  The differences are borne of culture.  For example, what is property?  What is encroachment?  Are there any agreements (contracts) that an individual cannot make?  Is an individual bound to honor an agreement made under duress, or deception?  Generally speaking, civilizations that tended to honor those two laws (within the context of their own cultures) tended to prosper, while those that failed to honor those two laws tended to decline.  The accepted rules of free markets flow from these two laws naturally, and these can be collectively called capitalism.  As such, capitalism exists to some limited degree always and everywhere; from the black market traders of the strictest socialist nations on Earth to the unregulated digital halls of Silk Road.

[benjamindees]

Although the rates that taco bell was offering was provablely low, they were still higher then the next presently available alternative, which happened to be subsistance farming.  As crappy as that work was, and as poorly as Taco Bell may have paid, those who worked there did so by their own free will.  They were not forced to do so.  If they had been, then it would have been real slavery, which is unacceptable.  But they weren't.  It's just that the job market in their area and with their skillset sucked.  If you wanted to help these people out, then start another factory nearby.  Offer better jobs for higher wages, and Taco Bell would have no choice but to pay more or close house.

What you haven't mentioned is that you would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of places where the average worker has an actual choice between subsistence farming and Taco Bell.  Most people, even in wealthy countries like the US, are born into families that own no property.  They are born in large cities, where nearby property values are exorbitantly high.  It is impossible to feed a person on less than 1/2 acre;  most city lots are a fraction of that.  And if they happen to live in a more rural area instead, there is no Taco Bell nearby.

So, the fact is that employers like Taco Bell build their businesses in places with ready access to a pool of impoverished, property-less laborers who can be exploited because they have absolutely no other option.  They don't build fast food restaurants in the countryside in order to cater to farmers.

[AyeYo]

Yeah well I've been a libertarian since before the internet existed.  And I'm perfectly aware of the contradictory views of some libertarians.  So please just try to address the issues presented.  Because at the moment you're conflating my responses with those of MoonShadow, and just throwing out spray-fire of anti-capitalist nonsense instead of making any rational points.

You're also conflating a sustainable system with a just system.  Capitalism is derived from the facts of nature.  Natural resources are limited.  Human stupidity is infinite.  Yet it is not inherently just or particularly equitable without some additional considerations.  It would be perfectly sustainable, for instance, for 50% of the world's population to just be periodically marched off to die in war, or to instate a global one-child policy, or forced labor camps or what have you.  These systems are not, however, particularly just.

So there are considerations beyond just unfettered capitalism and sustainability;  there are reasonable restrictions that even most ardent capitalists agree are beneficial.  For instance, a power plant produces electricity which can benefit everyone, but it also produces pollution which can do harm.  The common aim of sustainability, libertarianism, and even capitalism, is to identify and quantify the harm, and to mitigate or prevent it without also destroying the benefit.

Thirdly, you're conflating capable government with big government.  Libertarians tend to believe that self-government is the most effective form of regulation.  That's not necessarily true.  But it's certainly a limiting case.  So you may assume "capable government" to be a utopian fantasy.  But ultimately governments can be replaced when they fail to meet the most basic requirements of those governed.

Wow, a semi-reasonable post.  My apologies for lumping you in with the rest of the corporatists in disguise.  I still think (know) that you're belief system is out of touch with reality and too utopian to work, but I'll at least give you large amounts of credit for not being one of the many here who are latched firmly onto the corporate teet.

[Anonymous]

I don't think any of us have advocated government protections (limited liability, grants, etc.) for our businesses.

[NghtRppr]

Wow, a semi-reasonable post.  My apologies for lumping you in with the rest of the corporatists in disguise.  I still think (know) that you're belief system is out of touch with reality and too utopian to work, but I'll at least give you large amounts of credit for not being one of the many here who are latched firmly onto the corporate teet.

Calling people names does you no good.

[Dobrodav]

   It is funny how close Libertians and Communists are close, ar least at their idealism.
Both Communism and Libertianism, seems to have ability to function and benefit their society members.
But both of them have the same flaw. 
   They both can operate successfully, but  only in case that all, or at least 90 % of their populations, - share the same idea. In case of Communism - it is the idea of collective benefit.
In case of Libertianism - it is idea of preservation of personal freedom at any cost.

But Society`s will not NEVER  - and again, just for  better understanding -
will
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER
share same idea at this high  (around 90%) level.

   That is a  hard lesson that Russian Communism experiement give to the world.
If somwhere in the world will arise community of Libertians, than somwhere at range of 5-6 generation, will be time when world  should help them to get rid of that idea.
   Not because the world will need their "values", but becose they will, indeed need that help.

I am not trying to confuse anybody. This is just my opinion.

[MoonShadow]

   It is funny how close Libertians and Communists are close, ar least at their idealism.
Both Communism and Libertianism, seems to have ability to function and benefit their society members.
But both of them have the same flaw. 
   They both can operate successfully, but  only in case that all, or at least 90 % of their populations, - share the same idea. In case of Communism - it is the idea of collective benefit.
In case of Libertianism - it is idea of preservation of personal freedom at any cost.

This is not true at all.  Communism does require a near absolute participation rate to be successful, but libertarianism does not.  You seem to believe that, because we have an ideal goal to aim for, that a society that fails to obtain such lofty heights wouldn't still be a society that we would prefer to live in right now.  That is a rediculous assumption.  We aim high, in part, because that is the only way to make progress.  For if you start with the open willingness to compromise, you will end up settling for less than you could have achieved.  This is true in any negotiation, and politics is basicly a negotiation on an ongoing and national scale.  Would a communist prefer to live in a moderately more socially dictated society that ours?  Probably not, because a thinking communist would understand that a half-measure of communism would undermine itself.  This is not so with liberty.  I would choose a somewhat more libertarian society, and if others were to choose to create small enclaves of communism within that society, that effects me very little if at all.

[Vince Torres]

His job is to solve unemployment problems. In the future with all the technology eventually most jobs we see today won't be required. The gap between rich and poor will widen. It will be a sad day for most.

[MoonShadow]

His job is to solve unemployment problems.

Really?  Where in the job description included in the US Constitution is that?

[AyeYo]

  It is funny how close Libertians and Communists are close, ar least at their idealism.
Both Communism and Libertianism, seems to have ability to function and benefit their society members.
But both of them have the same flaw.  
   They both can operate successfully, but  only in case that all, or at least 90 % of their populations, - share the same idea. In case of Communism - it is the idea of collective benefit.
In case of Libertianism - it is idea of preservation of personal freedom at any cost.

But Society`s will not NEVER  - and again, just for  better understanding -
will
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER
share same idea at this high  (around 90%) level.

   That is a  hard lesson that Russian Communism experiement give to the world.
If somwhere in the world will arise community of Libertians, than somwhere at range of 5-6 generation, will be time when world  should help them to get rid of that idea.
   Not because the world will need their "values", but becose they will, indeed need that help.

I am not trying to confuse anybody. This is just my opinion.

That's basically it, and it's the reason that no idealogy exists in pure form.  The real world is far too complex and the organization of a real (not hypothetical) society needs to take into account the beliefs of all its members.

There's a reason that non-libertarians refuse to the forever hypothetical libertarian society as a utopia, because it cannot exist in this universe.

[Dobrodav]

Thats

This is not true at all.  Communism does require a near absolute participation rate to be successful, but libertarianism does not.  You seem to believe that, because we have an ideal goal to aim for, that a society that fails to obtain such lofty heights wouldn't still be a society that we would prefer to live in right now.  That is a rediculous assumption.  We aim high, in part, because that is the only way to make progress.  For if you start with the open willingness to compromise, you will end up settling for less than you could have achieved.  This is true in any negotiation, and politics is basicly a negotiation on an ongoing and national scale.  Would a communist prefer to live in a moderately more socially dictated society that ours?  Probably not, because a thinking communist would understand that a half-measure of communism would undermine itself.  This is not so with liberty.  I would choose a somewhat more libertarian society, and if others were to choose to create small enclaves of communism within that society, that effects me very little if at all.

   That is why, i am never tend to supress some point of view. My deep believe is that we, as world society, need extremists point of views. Somebody who believs in some thing, should to throw everything on the scales, to make his believs anyhow valued by others.

   We live in a world where balance is established only by extremists, not by the 80 % of inert mass.

   If you are interested why fully Libertians society are doomed - i am hope you will kisten to this arguments:
   Society contents lots of individuals, that are not interested only in private freedom, and that is more important, not all of them are some wellfare animals. There is some guys who dreamed and work to visit Mars someday. Some mathematics (well, i am forced refer to Perelman). All that peaples, that fighting with things they found realy important, and that things are not exist in material plane, but much more important for them. And again i am should mention somebody like Korolev - He worked on rockets being a prisioner.
   What i am talking about ? Think about this: This really important for humanity guy`s just have no time to fight fot their rights. They honestly thinks that their rights, freedoms, incomes, are UNIMPORTANT for humanity.
   Where will be their place in Libertian society ? They will quickly become SLAVES. Why ?
Because Libertianism are extreme form of egoism. Any Libertian, will take so much freedom, as it can from anybody, who not bother about personal freedom.

   And there i came to point why clear Libertianist`s society will fail. It will destroyed by competition.
First  it will be just economic competition. Unbelievably fast that competitions will turn in battle combat.
That process will ends by dictatorship of some more succseble libertianist. And as dictator he has chance to astablish dynasty that will last for maximum 5-6 generations- we know much of that examples.

[AyeYo]

Thats

This is not true at all.  Communism does require a near absolute participation rate to be successful, but libertarianism does not.  You seem to believe that, because we have an ideal goal to aim for, that a society that fails to obtain such lofty heights wouldn't still be a society that we would prefer to live in right now.  That is a rediculous assumption.  We aim high, in part, because that is the only way to make progress.  For if you start with the open willingness to compromise, you will end up settling for less than you could have achieved.  This is true in any negotiation, and politics is basicly a negotiation on an ongoing and national scale.  Would a communist prefer to live in a moderately more socially dictated society that ours?  Probably not, because a thinking communist would understand that a half-measure of communism would undermine itself.  This is not so with liberty.  I would choose a somewhat more libertarian society, and if others were to choose to create small enclaves of communism within that society, that effects me very little if at all.

   That is why, i am never tend to supress some point of view. My deep believe is that we, as world society, need extremists point of views. Somebody who believs in some thing, should to throw everything on the scales, to make his believs anyhow valued by others.

   We live in a world where balance is established only by extremists, not by the 80 % of inert mass.

   If you are interested why fully Libertians society are doomed - i am hope you will kisten to this arguments:
   Society contents lots of individuals, that are not interested only in private freedom, and that is more important, not all of them are some wellfare animals. There is some guys who dreamed and work to visit Mars someday. Some mathematics (well, i am forced refer to Pelerman). All that peaples, that fighting with things they found realy important, and that things are not exist in material plane, but much more important for them. And again i am should mention somebody like Korolev - He worked on rockets being a prisioner.
   What i am talking about ? Think about this: This really important for humanity guy`s just have no time to fight fot their rights. They honestly thinks that their rights, freedoms, incomes, are UNIMPORTANT for humanity.
   Where will be their place in Libertian society ? They will quickly become SLAVES. Why ?
Because Libertianism are extreme form of egoism. Any Libertian, will take so much freedom, as it can from anybody, who not bother about personal freedom.

   And there i came to point why clear Libertianist`s society will fail. It will destroyed by competition.
First  it will be just economic competition. Unbelievably fast that competitions will turn in battle combat.
That process will ends by dictatorship of some more succseble libertianist. And as dictator he has chance to astablish dynasty that will last for maximum 5-6 generations- we know much of that examples.

That was well said and, while simple, is a perfectly valid explanation of why libertarianism will fail. 

Thanks for being the only other person in here that isn't riding hard on the libertarian bandwagon.