To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[qbg]

Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth.

You assume they'd be OK with that. You also assume there wouldn't be 50 other people clamoring to pay for their worth.

They'll probably be more okay with that than starving to death, or stealing and being hunted down. As for your competitors, you just have to make sure that you are Extracting close to the market rate. You don't have to worry too much -- your competitors will be like you and so the rate is good enough (after all, they need to make a profit), and if you do well enough in your market, you will face only a few serious competitors at worse.

Wait, which is it?

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

[myrkul]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

[qbg]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

[Anonymous]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

This is irrational conspiracy. There is no ground to prove markets will form like this.

[myrkul]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

And How, pray tell, do the businesses restrict access to affordable loans?

[qbg]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

And How, pray tell, do the businesses restrict access to affordable loans?

That. You need to in effect become a private government, thus making society unlibertarian. Thus it is in the worker's best interests to have a libertarian society.

[myrkul]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

And How, pray tell, do the businesses restrict access to affordable loans?

That. You need to in effect become a private government, thus making society unlibertarian. Thus it is in the worker's best interests to have a libertarian society.

Um. So, Who won that one?

[Anonymous]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

And How, pray tell, do the businesses restrict access to affordable loans?

That. You need to in effect become a private government, thus making society unlibertarian. Thus it is in the worker's best interests to have a libertarian society.

Did somebody just have a brain fart?

[NghtRppr]

Hyperbole: for when you're out of legitimate ways to make your point.

You mean like your constant usage of "fantasy liberland" or whatever it is you like to say?

[MoonShadow]

Did somebody just have a brain fart?

I think that might have been some cognative dissonance antimatter coming together with a *bang*.

[AyeYo]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

This is irrational conspiracy. There is no ground to prove markets will form like this.

Yea, no ground, just the world we live in and the current system we have.  That's nothing substantial.  Feel free to overlook it.

[Anonymous]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

This is irrational conspiracy. There is no ground to prove markets will form like this.

Yea, no ground, just the world we live in and the current system we have.  That's nothing substantial.  Feel free to overlook it.

The current world we live in is ran by a state fed on poisonous debt and money.

[AyeYo]

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

This is irrational conspiracy. There is no ground to prove markets will form like this.

Yea, no ground, just the world we live in and the current system we have.  That's nothing substantial.  Feel free to overlook it.

The current world we live in is ran by a state fed on poisonous debt and money.

Which is a result of the type of the market action described.  Someday you might understand that.  The current system didn't spring up out of the ground.  It's the end product of free markets and human nature.

[epi 1:10,000]

"Which is a result of the type of the market action described.  Someday you might understand that.  The current system didn't spring up out of the ground.  It's the end product of free markets and human nature evolution."

[Mittlyle]

Strict property rights – sounds great, but to make that an absolute value? That's insanity. If somebody has in excess and other is deprived, it's almost an human right that there happens a transfer of wealth.

I'll concede that it's almost a human right, but it's still not.  However, the right to keep the fruits of one's own labors most certainly is a human right that is regularly violated by people who claim the authority to do so by reason that they are the government.

I define human rights as right to meet basic physical and mental needs. Taxation may not be pretty way to ensure meeting those needs but I think its justifiable. I don't see how charities and market mechanisms would meet that goal. Setting wages to float (as I believe libertarian system would do) will lead to unreasonable workload to sustain oneself for the least productive. Otherwise there will be unemployment which is even bigger a problem. Basic income and minor tax-rate and the problem is solved.

To say that wealthy would put up a private charity that's sufficient is naive and arrogant at the same time.

It seems to have worked pretty well in the US right up until the New Deal.

New Deal essentially is what had to be done as charities weren't enough of a safety-net during the great depression. Of course the great depression is not a fair point of reference, but proves the point that at least at times welfare is needed.

To say there's no obligation is just immoral.

Obligation to do what, exactly?  Aid your fellow man?  Sure, I'm obligated as a Christian to help the needy, but that is my religious obligation.  It's not something that can be satisfied on my behalf by government taking from me to give to another.  Nor can I, as a Christian, force my mores upon others.  

My wording wasn't that successful there. I just mean that if the system fails to deliver basic rights to people, then there is moral obligation to change the rules to somehow meet those needs. I wasn't saying that individual should immediately give what he has in excess to somebody not so fortunate.

To force fortunate people to invest in their fellow citizens – well-being is capital – is both just and will be beneficial to the society as whole.  

<sigh>

If you aren't a communist at 20, then you have no heart.  If you are still a communist at 30, then you have no sense.

I take that commie-note as mere tool of rhetoric. Not everything short of libertarianism is totalitarianism even though that seems to be the point in these circles. All I'm saying is that tax money that is spent to make unfortunate people better functioning individuals will reap benefits to the whole society. I think thats very sensible.

In libertarian system values are greatly defined by success in game called economics. Money, however, is bad measurement for being a good friend, a wife, a husband or a member of community. Art, culture, science and nature would be subordinate to profit. To fix that one needs just to give sufficient freedom from economy so these just as important values have chance to flourish.

You obviously have a distorted understanding of what libertarian system would be.

Please clarify or give a source so I can verify this as I'm genuinely interested in the concept of libertarianism. For now I'll just state that as libertarianism is an ideology without reality so it is very easy to fall trap of unreasonable hopes, or any other misconception for that matter. Communism is prime example of how rosy ideology and harsh reality failed to match. Similarly communism was the ideology to free people from perceived oppression of entity and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if libertarianism ended in similar dystopic result. The rule of the state is just replaced by the rules of the economics that will emerge.

I agree, the current system is broken and does not function. Taxes are used to means not morally justifiable. Decisions have nothing to do with public opinion. However, if your car is broken you wouldn't wreck it altogether and say everybody else should do the same. You would fix it.

There comes a point that it's no longer worth trying to fix, and it's just better to junk it and try again.  We passed that point around 1971.

Here's a better metaphor: if your car is broken, you wouldn't argue everybody should start using bicycles only. I agree that sometimes reseting the game may be the only viable way to build functioning solution.

In this case something considerably more lightweight design might do the trick. My model is basic income (or NIT, they are equivalent) + 10%-40% overall tax rate + abolishing of IPRs + regulations on enviroment and safety of products + free elementary education and subvented basic healthcare, more expensive treatments through insurance. Basically I'm advocate of public and private living side by side as they will dovetail each others flaws.

Public & private is what we have been getting for as long as I have been alive, and as you pointed out above, that seems to lead to a broken system with endless stream of bad decisions.

Bad decisions have been result of lack of accountability. Private side is optimized by profit incentive. That can lead to very different results than what is desirable.

[AyeYo]

I take that commie-note as mere tool of rhetoric. Not everything short of libertarianism is totalitarianism even though that seems to be the point in these circles. All I'm saying is that tax money that is spent to make unforunate people better functioning individuals will reap benefits to the whole society. I think thats very sensible.

Libertarians just CANNOT wrap their minds around this, which is what leads to a lot of the circular arguments.

[epi 1:10,000]

Good god could everyone just read "A Theory of Justice" so we could better debate one another.  It is cheap, easy to find, and a basis for the majority of US liberal egalitarianism.  I have seen good counter arguments to Rawls's work by Libertarians ans Anarchist but nothing on that level here in this forum.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+theory+of+justice&hl=en&ei=FD4PTqDSJ_KGsAKsnJ35CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[barbarousrelic]

How would a libertarian society address the causes of global warming?

[lemonginger]

Good god could everyone just read "A Theory of Justice" so we could better debate one another.  It is cheap, easy to find, and a basis for the majority of US liberal egalitarianism.  I have seen good counter arguments to Rawls's work by Libertarians ans Anarchist but nothing on that level here in this forum.

I agree, though it is worth pointing out that Nozick is often writing in direct response to Rawls and forms that basis/bedrock of much of the right-libertarian philosophy on this board. So there is indirectly a lot of criticism of Rawlsian social contract positions even if people may not be making them explicitly.

(I would add Iris Marion Young "Justice and the Politics of Difference" for a comprehensive discussion of non-distributive justice and Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom" for a re-examination of liberty/freedom.)

[AyeYo]

How would a libertarian society address the causes of global warming?

The magical market would cure global warming with happiness and pixie dust.