An Anti-Libertarian FAQ Worth Talking About?

[fergalish]

I won't accept your conclusion because you fail to show cause and effects. As of right now, your argument is an assertion that doesn't prove anything, either in my favor, or your.

I agree with all you say here, but you're misunderstanding my point.  I'm not specifically trying to show cause and effect, but merely indicate that there exist cases of deregulation which have proved disadvantageous to the consumer.  Right now we have a status quo of Big Interfering Regulating Government, and most people are sufficiently content with that that they won't go out and demonstrate on the streets demanding change.  If you want to change the status quo, the onus is on *you* to convince people that deregulation is the right way to go and to get them out on the streets demonstrating.

I'm keeping an open mind, but I've yet to be convinced.  I wrote what I see as the real problem (Big Corporation) in my last post and I find it interesting that you merely criticize my general points without answering my specific question about free-market policies.

[1715000910]

1715000910

[kiba]

I agree with all you say here, but you're misunderstanding my point.  I'm not specifically trying to show cause and effect, but merely indicate that there exist cases of deregulation which have proved disadvantageous to the consumer.  Right now we have a status quo of Big Interfering Regulating Government, and most people are sufficiently content with that that they won't go out and demonstrate on the streets demanding change. 

Wrong. You said this example prove that deregulation have bad effects but you didn't actually *show* that is the case. Your conclusion may be true, but you failed to show how it is actually true.

If you want to change the status quo, the onus is on *you* to convince people that deregulation is the right way to go and to get them out on the streets demonstrating.

I'm keeping an open mind, but I've yet to be convinced.  I wrote what I see as the real problem (Big Corporation) in my last post and I find it interesting that you merely criticize my general points without answering my specific question about free-market policies.

I was never an opponent of all regulation, per se. It's a strawman.

Moreover, today's corporations are creatures of today's regulation! The incentive system is VASTLY different in an anarchist system. It's like talking apple and oranges here.

[foo barf]

lots of people drunk on the libertarian kool-aid here, apparently.

i'd like to see bitcoin succeed as much as the next person here, but i fear this idealogical motivation of libertarianism is a deleterious trait to exhibit. libertarianism is capitalism on crack, maybe people are too naive to read history or understand their environments, but selfishness exhibited in policy is exactly what libertarianism is. please understand, there are laudable aspects to wanting to better your own position, but when that comes at the expense of altruism you cross the line into being a cunt.

i suspect many 'libertarians' will fail to see the logic presented here, and i won't back up statements with links and blurbs for those too stupid to think for themselves. where is the liberty in libertarianism? selfishness is foremost, unless i am mistaken and i welcome responses.

[kiba]

lots of people drunk on the libertarian kool-aid here, apparently.

i'd like to see bitcoin succeed as much as the next person here, but i fear this idealogical motivation of libertarianism is a deleterious trait to exhibit. libertarianism is capitalism on crack, maybe people are too naive to read history or understand their environments, but selfishness exhibited in policy is exactly what libertarianism is. please understand, there are laudable aspects to wanting to better your own position, but when that comes at the expense of altruism you cross the line into being a cunt.

i suspect many 'libertarians' will fail to see the logic presented here, and i won't back up statements with links and blurbs for those too stupid to think for themselves. where is the liberty in libertarianism? selfishness is foremost, unless i am mistaken and i welcome responses.

It is one thing to disagree and thinks libertarianism is completely wrong, but it is quite another to completely misunderstood libertarianism.

I would describe libertarianism as an incomplete ethical framework center around autonomous moral agents who are self-owners. Libertarianism often permits more than they restrict.  One example of permissibility is that I could choose to donate most of my earning to charity, or not. However, a restriction exists that I cannot engage in theft, even if it is government sponsored, which is known as taxation.

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have a good overview of the philosophy.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

[ribuck]

... there are laudable aspects to wanting to better your own position, but when that comes at the expense of altruism you cross the line ...

If you hang around this forum a while, you will see countless examples of altruistic behavior from self-professed libertarians. Libertarianism rejects the idea of being forced to be altruistic, but it doesn't reject voluntary altruism.

It shows a lack of understanding of the human spirit to imagine that people are "good enough" to coerce others into being "altruistic" through the mechanisms of the state, yet are not "good enough" to be altruistic in the absence of a coercive state.

Anyway, history shows that those who wield control in a coercive state are more likely to enrich themselves than be altruistic.

[tedstein]

... there are laudable aspects to wanting to better your own position, but when that comes at the expense of altruism you cross the line ...

If you hang around this forum a while, you will see countless examples of altruistic behavior from self-professed libertarians. Libertarianism rejects the idea of being forced to be altruistic, but it doesn't reject voluntary altruism.

It shows a lack of understanding of the human spirit to imagine that people are "good enough" to coerce others into being "altruistic" through the mechanisms of the state, yet are not "good enough" to be altruistic in the absence of a coercive state.

Anyway, history shows that those who wield control in a coercive state are more likely to enrich themselves than be altruistic.

You can find altruism in any ideology.

I personally don't care if someone is a libertarian, socialist, radical feminist, anarchist, or what. Just don't be anything psychotic, like a democrat or republican.

[foo barf]

thanks for the responses! but i don't see how altruism is really approached or defined in libertarianism, it is permitted but it is permitted by way of omission, and omission of prohibition is wholesale in many philosophies originating from anarchy. libertarianism is an ontological interpretation of anarchy, i understand the philosophy well. 'hands-off' capitalism and libertarian economics are policies of economic anarchy which lead us to cycles to boom and bust, and increasing extremes of poverty and wealth.

a libertarian government is oxymoronic. governments can function effectively and for the benefit of society, when properly managed and legitimately staffed, so i disagree with aspects of libertarian ideology. taxation is not necessarily theft; when that money goes into useful things that you benefit from, like an advanced modern infrastructure and high quality public services, you have not lost or been stolen from. this can be especially true in so-called free markets when profit is free to be primary, and actual services may otherwise be secondary priorities.

businesses rarely render services to their clients beyond what is required to turn a profit! some things actually cost money to run, like hospitals and schools, and when these are not governed democratically but instead governed by the forces of free market economics, the public's interest is no longer served primarily. you probably pay your bitcoin transaction fees; same thing.

kiba, i havn't misunderstood you, i just disagree. the size of the gap between rich and poor is approximately relative to the amount of crime and disorder in that society. libertarianism does nothing to address this that i can see, and promotes the self, and in ways that encourage a system of selfishness that is prey to influence.

[kiba]

thanks for the responses! but i don't see how altruism is really approached or defined in libertarianism, it is permitted but it is permitted by way of omission, and omission of prohibition is wholesale in many philosophies originating from anarchy. libertarianism is an ontological interpretation of anarchy, i understand the philosophy well. 'hands-off' capitalism and libertarian economics are policies of economic anarchy which lead us to cycles to boom and bust, and increasing extremes of poverty and wealth.

a libertarian government is oxymoronic. governments can function effectively and for the benefit of society, when properly managed and legitimately staffed, so i disagree with aspects of libertarian ideology. taxation is not necessarily theft; when that money goes into useful things that you benefit from, like an advanced modern infrastructure and high quality public services, you have not lost or been stolen from. this can be especially true in so-called free markets when profit is free to be primary, and actual services may otherwise be secondary priorities.

businesses rarely render services to their clients beyond what is required to turn a profit! some things actually cost money to run, like hospitals and schools, and when these are not governed democratically but instead governed by the forces of free market economics, the public's interest is no longer served primarily. you probably pay your bitcoin transaction fees; same thing.

kiba, i havn't misunderstood you, i just disagree. the size of the gap between rich and poor is approximately relative to the amount of crime and disorder in that society. libertarianism does nothing to address this that i can see, and promotes the self, and in ways that encourage a system of selfishness that is prey to influence.

A bunch of assertions about consequences of libertarianism backed by nothingness. I see nothing of merit to discuss until you provide reasoning and evidence behind your claims.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

businesses rarely render services to their clients beyond what is required to turn a profit! some things actually cost money to run, like hospitals and schools, and when these are not governed democratically but instead governed by the forces of free market economics, the public's interest is no longer served primarily.

Demonstrably false - Somalia for example.

[gene]

businesses rarely render services to their clients beyond what is required to turn a profit! some things actually cost money to run, like hospitals and schools, and when these are not governed democratically but instead governed by the forces of free market economics, the public's interest is no longer served primarily.

Demonstrably false - Somalia for example.

Ah, yes. Somalia! The land of plenty and the libertarian's utopia.

You've convinced me...


<ahem>

To the normal people trying to "discuss" with these fools, I suspect that most of these scholars and philosophers are also working on how to get BMX pegs for BTC.

[kiba]

Ah, yes. Somalia! The land of plenty and the libertarian's utopia.

You've convinced me...


<ahem>

To the normal people trying to "discuss" with these fools, I suspect that most of these scholars and philosophers are also working on how to get BMX pegs for BTC.

No attempt to argue rationally here, I see.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

I agree. While I've admitted and will agree that Somalia isn't a paradise by any means, it is doing very well for itself in comparison to it's neighbors.

The point I was making is that for-profit hospitals in somalia are the norm, and they do good work, better than many hospitals in neighboring countries.

[kiba]

I agree. While I've admitted and will agree that Somalia isn't a paradise by any means, it is doing very well for itself in comparison to it's neighbors.

Libertarians think Somalia is a paradise is a strawman argument. While I don't expect to agree with people soon, when people make that kind of stupid arguments against their opponents, it bring down the level of discourse.

[foo barf]

A bunch of assertions about consequences of libertarianism backed by nothingness. I see nothing of merit to discuss until you provide reasoning and evidence behind your claims.

rather than ignore my comment, which is founded in logic, why don't you address the points i've made?
are your beliefs based on faith in the ideology? i don't think we're communicating on the same level... and you did clearly ignore or fail to read my comment because I said I wasn't going to provide examples. it's now your turn to prove that you're not stupid. provide examples and proof that free market economics doesn't increase the divide between rich and poor, this is a very relevant subject if we're talking libertarian philosophy.

libertarianism is actually very close to the status quo. only thing left to change is remove all the taxation, and if you remove taxation, who is going to pay to fill the potholes in your road?

[kiba]

rather than ignore my comment, which is founded in logic, why don't you address the points i've made?

They are simply conclusion about what libertarian policy entails with no attempt at economic analysis. They may be true, but they lack any logical details that show the shortcoming of anarchism.

For example:

'hands-off' capitalism and libertarian economics are policies of economic anarchy which lead us to cycles to boom and bust, and increasing extremes of poverty and wealth.

1. Policy of economic anarchy
2.
3. Boom and bust, and extreme difference in wealth.

As you can see, you propose no mechanism about why libertarian policy cause cycle of boom and bust and also difference in wealth.

are your beliefs based on faith in the ideology? i don't think we're communicating on the same level...

Why would you ask your opponent on the other side such silly, stupid and insulting question? I could very well ask if your belief system is based on faith in the ideology. Not helpful to the discussion.

[foo barf]

i live in a small country that for nearly a decade tried in earnest (against the wishes of the public) to reform it's economic policy towards that of full-free-market economics. we were an experiment for the NWO in the 1980 and 1990s and we suffered. a direct consequence of this free-market reform was falling wages, soaring unemployment and social disorder. thats right, i live in a place where libertarian-style free market economics is widely known to be a failure, except in libertarian groups... forgive me for being so passionate, i intend no insult, it's just that this crazy idea of 'free' or completely deregulated markets actually cost many hard-working people their livelihoods.

if you're insulted by a tricky question, that reflects more upon your character than mine, i was asking sincerely why you believe in libertarianism and if you're too important to answer then don't. anarchy, libertarianism and friends have issues, such as putting the onus of social conscience onto the individual, when we know that most won't look twice at the beggar on the street. i find that illogical, social welfare is equally as important as having a police force. ad-hoc altruism works in groups of up to about 200 but beyond that dysfunction increases quickly and centralised management or governance is required.

and what exactly would satisfy you in your quest for examples and proof? is logical deduction from fact not enough? is scientific method, experiment, observation and re-modeling of the hypothesis not enough? is quoting Albert Einstein not enough? (you missed that lecture apparently) i don't consider you my opponent either, but drawing lines is exactly the type of behaviour that degrades this discourse.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

I haven't heard of this, where do you live?

[foo barf]

I haven't heard of this, where do you live?

New Zealand. Wikipedia has a good article titled 'Rogernomics' (our localised version of Reaganomics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics

The reference to being an NWO experiment is speculation on my part, although there were (and still are) a lot of high-level secret meetings between US Diplomats and our members of parliament, which is a Westminster system similar to Britain's. Our democracy is somewhat functional (the MMP proportionally-representative system currently under threat though), and the USA threatened our food security (source: Wikileaks) when we refused to join the Iraq war :-(

[foo barf]

I agree. While I've admitted and will agree that Somalia isn't a paradise by any means, it is doing very well for itself in comparison to it's neighbors.

BTW, the somalian hospitals are not "for-profit" corporations. they are run at a managed loss and are funded by wealthy foreigners. Some other examples of where somalia's healthcare funding comes from are organisations including Somalicare, the Somali-American Women Aid Project and SEHO.

an interesting story a doctor told me, was about while he was working at a king's private hospital in Saudi. women would give birth on the doorsteps to the hospital because only the princes and wealthy had health insurance and would be allowed inside.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

I haven't heard of this, where do you live?

New Zealand. Wikipedia has a good article titled 'Rogernomics' (our localised version of Reaganomics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics

The reference to being an NWO experiment is speculation on my part, although there were (and still are) a lot of high-level secret meetings between US Diplomats and our members of parliament, which is a Westminster system similar to Britain's. Our democracy is somewhat functional (the MMP proportionally-representative system currently under threat though), and the USA threatened our food security (source: Wikileaks) when we refused to join the Iraq war :-(

I'm interested in this, and want to learn more. From what I'm reading though, it sounds like it was a "free market*", in that the state remained rather powerful during these times, and still giving quite a bit to the people (and taxing and such)

More importantly, strong anti-labor union laws were put into effect. That gives incredible power to the corporations. If unions were unrestricted, I believe it would have gone much differently.

Please elaborate on this with details on anything that might be important.