Libertarianism and interventionnism

[Anon136]

Capitalist anarchist, libertarian and minarchist have a clear moral border between what is legit for a government to do and what is bad. Leftist don't have this, everything is good if it serve the "public interest" (something that don't even exist...), so nothing prevent them to push to radical collectivism like in Cuba.

Na. Some capitalist anarchists like myself are consiquentialists. In theory we would be willing to support taxation if it lead to the right consequences. Some people would argue that we are not libertarians, but I think we are.

Then you might as well start support child rape, if that somehow was to lead to the right consequences.
I find the very idea appalling and immoral.

I totally do. If a metior were coming towards the planet and were about to wipe out all life on the planet and some aliens stopped by and said "well save your planet from destruction but only if you allow someone to rape a child". Heck yes i would support child rape. Consequences matter man. Notice this is not at all the same thing as just saying child rape is fine. Obviously its a terrible thing. I have my moral objections to it and i do have a sense or morality and i do think that morality matters. But so do consiquences.

Now obviously thats an extreme example but its an important analogy. A less ridiculous form of the same argument is that if the outcome of abolishing the state were to actually create what statists mean when they use the word anarchy, than i would not be in favor of that simply because taxation is theft and theft is immoral. I would rather live with a little bit of immoral theft by the government than mad max thunderdome. Of course lefties are wrong and that would not be the consequences of abolishing government. Thank god. I know what choice i would make if forced to, but i sure am glad i dont have to make that choice.

[1713867246]

1713867246

[David Latapie]

The question is, if i preferred not to fund the net would you extend the same respect to me that i extended to you by not using violence to try to prevent you from funding it and not use violence against me to try to force me to pay for the net? (I would if it were empirically demonstrated to be truly effective and well tuned like you say, but lets say i wouldn’t just for the sake of the argument).

For first, I am not sure I understood your sentence, so please correct me if I am wrong.
If you don't want to fund the net, no problem. You're out of the equation. You don't want to participate, then if you fall down, I won't help you, I let you die in the street if that happens (it would require people to know what to answer to their son asking 'dad, why he is dying and no one does a thing?' but that should be easy).
That's a contract, you refused it (because you gambled you would not need it of for whatever reason). No problem here. So, yes, I would respect and respectfully let you die

I have to say I have a problem with "society should protect people even against themselves" ( common interventionists trope). I consider society should protect people against lack of sufficient information to make an informed decision. But once it is done, its everyone's business.

[hologram]

1.A lot of people don't want to be productive. They have another vision of life. They want to live a simple life with their family, go fishing on a Saturday and have money to buy a gift for their son's birthday. What do you answer? That is it the governement's fault if they can't?

2.I consider that major companies are not encouraging the free markets, this is bad for their business - when are atop, you want to stay atop, oftentimes by any means necessary. How do you see anti-trust regulation? For or against the free market?

1.Be productive don't mean work 12h a day, it mean produce more added value in one hour of work. Productivity gain happen cause of creative destruction, and everyone become more productive. A low skill worker is more productive in a mainly automated industry than in some farm in Africa.

2.Anti trust law are a government solution to a government problem: market rigidity cause of regulation.

[Anon136]

The question is, if i preferred not to fund the net would you extend the same respect to me that i extended to you by not using violence to try to prevent you from funding it and not use violence against me to try to force me to pay for the net? (I would if it were empirically demonstrated to be truly effective and well tuned like you say, but lets say i wouldn’t just for the sake of the argument).

For first, I am not sure I understood your sentence, so please correct me if I am wrong.
If you don't want to fund the net, no problem. You're out of the equation. You don't want to participate, then if you fall down, I won't help you, I let you die in the street if that happens (it would require people to know what to answer to their son asking 'dad, why he is dying and no one does a thing?' but that should be easy).
That's a contract, you refused it (because you gambled you would not need it of for whatever reason). No problem here. So, yes, I would respect and respectfully let you die

I have to say I have a problem with "society should protect people even against themselves" ( common interventionists trope). I consider society should protect people against lack of sufficient information to make an informed decision. But once it is done, its everyone's business.

Na than you arnt a leftie in my opinion. We just got all confused with our words. I totally support your position. Though i will say what you described can hardly be called a government

[David Latapie]

Oh, tell that to the people born in Syria, North Korea or any other horror state how they should just move. How about the Palestinians? The Jews in Germany.

Strawman fallacy bordering on Godwin point.

I'm not a fan on using big words for the sake of it. Look at real slavery and the true horror it generates. Same goes for "kidnapping" and "guns".[/quote]

The horrors of prison is very real. You keep talking like these things are not real because they aren't happening to you at this very second.

So is the horror of living under the bridge because you are pennyless after you boss fired you and you can't get an new job.
Let's face it: we won't have a productive conversation that way. I'm talking about avoiding hyperbole (slavery for citizenship) and you reply by engaging in a slippery rope that avoids talking about the real thing (here, abuse of hyperbole).

Are you honestly saying that people are not being kidnapped and put in the rape camps known as prison for defying the state by asserting their own rights to property and body?

Ditto (I hesitate between loaded question and strawman, through).

Let's talk business. Offer and demand: there is a demand for taxation. Economy of scale: good luck making large structure work without spreading the cost and the maintenance - consider fixing just the part of the road you are actually walking on. Before the advent of state-owned schools, which part of the population was litterate (reminder: freedom starts when you can question what you are being told, and litteracy is a great way to do it)?

There is also a demand for child porn and slavery. It doens't matter if there is a demand for things that are immoral. It does not make them any more moral.
Of course there is a demand for free money by the people who benefit from getting them, and the power they bring.

OK, I quit. It seems that you main argumentation is about invoking various avatars of Godwin. I will continue this conversation with Anon136 until you revert to a more contructive argumentation.

A contract should require two things: that you understand it and that you accept it (which in turns implies that you can refuse it). I accept the social contract for the most part and you seem not to. This doesn't make it less legible (even though the fact that you cannot practically refuse it is annoying, to say the least). I consider you are confusing "I refuse" and "Everyone shall refuse" (Russel's teapot here).

You are free to sign any contract you want. Where do I confuse this?

You are not, I was just making a point. Sorry if it was unclear.

The fact that you can't refuse it says it's not a real contract, but a form of slavery.

I must admit you argumentation is interesting here - a contract that you can't refuse is not really a contract, it is closer to slavery. But your use of hyperbole still annoys me. Slavery is in my view to strong of a word, even if the idea is similar.

So maybe you can help me understand something. Why are lefties involved in a movement whos purpose, not by any mans imposition, but by its own nature, is to create a free market. I mean I welcome you guys. I welcome everyone. But i just dont understand why you guys would want to be involved in this. Wouldn't you rather support the money that the state uses to fund its self? You talk about how much you love government schools. You know those are mostly paid for by stealing the purchasing power of the money that they force everyone to use right? Why dont you use that money if you love government run schools so much. Now just to be clear, its not rhetorical, i dont want you to use that money, i personally want you to use crypto, its just a legit question that sounds rhetorical even though it isn't.

First, I would welcome a state to convert its currency into a cryptocurrency. Cryptodollars? Why not!
Second, my vision of interventionnism (or leftism, if you prefer) is: a safety net for everyone at a cost of a contribution. A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level.
I believe in offer and demand (and not only for economy, also in biology or psychology, hence religions). But I also believe in safety net. I completely accept this is a Judeo-Christian thing at heart (caritas, justice) and I won't say it is rational (although there is some rationality in defending it, watch Nick Hanauer and Richard Wilkinson). It is my ideal of life, that people who fall won't die.

You are free to offer any social safety net you wish. Why do you feel the need to force people into it by the threat of violence to gain their possessions to redistribute?

No anarchist wants to stop you from setting up a working safety net that you may opt in to. The very idea that you would need force to do this seems to imply that you think it's a failed idea, because people can't voluntarily do it.

See my answer to Anon136. Safety net like an insurance, maybe opt-out instead of opt-in (children and insufficiently informed people). Now that I think about it, it is close to the Theory X and Theory Y (X=people are stupid, we shall protect them against themselves; Y=people can be empowered)

So, my vision of interventionnism is more like an opt-out insurance.

[hologram]

So is the horror of living under the bridge because you are pennyless after you boss fired you and you can't get an new job.

Invalid argument, people are richer in a free market economy cause they are more productive and productivity increase faster. Sorry but economic theory and reality prove this everyday.

[Jungian]

Strawman fallacy bordering on Godwin point.

'

How so?
You talk about how the social contract/goverment is valid because you can move from it. I point out to real examples where this isn't true.
If we were talking about a specific government in a specific place in time that you like, please state so and we may continue the discussion there.

So is the horror of living under the bridge because you are pennyless after you boss fired you and you can't get an new job.
Let's face it: we won't have a productive conversation that way. I'm talking about avoiding hyperbole (slavery for citizenship) and you reply by engaging in a slippery rope that avoids talking about the real thing (here, abuse of hyperbole).

This argument does not hold water. The boss have no moral obligation to let you work for him. If you he does, you should immediate hire me and pay me a wage, right?

He does nothing wrong by not having you as a worker, no more than you do something wrong by not hiring me.

Ditto (I hesitate between loaded question and strawman, through).

The question might be loaded, because you claim I hyperbole because I show real world examples where this is actually true.

OK, I quit. It seems that you main argumentation is about invoking various avatars of Godwin. I will continue this conversation with Anon136 until you revert to a more contructive argumentation.

No, I just point out where your argument goes if it you stretch it. Can we agree that an argument to be valid, it must not self contradict in any situation?

My position is that of a moral one. You say that there is an demand for taxation and use the idea that somehow a demand for something is an argument for it. I merely point out that if you take that argument and apply it to another situation such as child porn, it doesn't hold, therefor it can never hold that demand for something makes it right.

[Jungian]

I must admit you argumentation is interesting here - a contract that you can't refuse is not really a contract, it is closer to slavery. But your use of hyperbole still annoys me. Slavery is in my view to strong of a word, even if the idea is similar.

I do not find this hyperbole at all, its much closer to what is actually going on. I don't know what the opposite to hyperbole (hypobole?) is, but I find that this is what most people engage in when it comes do these matters. They call theft taxation and they call torture enhanced interrogation techniques. Not because of the act itself, but because who does it.

If you were to describe the situation in neutral terms, such that you didn't know what the parties involved people are much more inclined to use the words I do.

"Person A uses force to take money from person B. Person B has worked for the money. What do you call person A?"

Anyone would call him a thief, yet they call him the taxman when he's sent from the government.

[David Latapie]

I understand your point, i wanted you to answer this. So in my own perception of the social contract public school is not something i agree with. How do we decide without a moral way to reflect about the place of government ?

This is tricky because we are talking about children, who don't have the right tool for free-thiking (this is scientifically proven, even anticipating doesn't happen before age seven, the part of the brain devoted to this being underdeveloped).

I would tentatively say that children should be taught to exercice their critical thinking. There is a need in society to learn a corpus of value and references that tie people together. The schoolyard is a great place for this (and courses too, but different ones). I don't believe in homeschooling but since it illegal in my country, I can't talk about it, I have no experience, even second-hand, about it.

And Thieves Emporium is a fiction about a failed USA that turned to a police state. You follow a young mother who try to survive in an agorist economy that take place in the deep web. It's not a philosophy book, more a book about how the western world can turn.

I did not know agorism. I quite like the idea.

The idea that you can have a legal entity that is other then the persons who commit the deeds is laughable at best.

Sorry, I do not understand. Could you reformulate?

Of course companies are against the free market, they are a product of the state and benefit from state protection and can use its law to drive out competition.

So we agree on this one. I was not sure at first, but that may be because of the state of politics in France (the rightists are pro-corporations, so it mixes things).

If people don't want to be productive they don't have to. A lot of people could live very simple lives if it weren't for inflation, taxation, debt and the constant need to grow the GDP to satisfy your debtors.

I honestly don't know about this one, neither on one side or another. As a general rule, I am suspicious against any magical formula, whoever announces it - a someone say "listen to the one who is looking for truth, be ware of the one who found it".

[hologram]

1.This is tricky because weare talking about children, who don't have the right tool for free-thiking (this is scientifically proven, even anticipating doesn't happen before age seven, the part of the brain devoted to this being underdeveloped).

I would tentatively say that children should be taught to exercice their critical thinking. There is a need in society to learn a corpus of value and references that tie people together. The schoolyard is a great place for this (and courses too, but different ones). I don't believe in homeschooling but since it illegal in my country, I can't talk about it, I have no experience, even second-hand, about it.

2.I did not know agorism. I quite like the idea.

1.Sorry, children was not the point but just an example. So if my own perception of the social contract don't include drug prohibition ?

I don't know if you support drug prohibition, it's just an example. I want to ask you "how to decide without a moral border what to include in the social contract ?".

2.Sure, you are in bitcoin  

And please, don't lose time explaining what the fuck is France, this government is a so big pile of shit (but Sarkozy was same). 

[David Latapie]

2.Anti trust law are a government solution to a government problem: market rigidity cause of regulation.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Jungian]

The idea that you can have a legal entity that is other then the persons who commit the deeds is laughable at best.

Sorry, I do not understand. Could you reformulate?[/quote]

A company (corporation) is a legal entity in itself that might be punished.
For example, a bank can accused and found guilty of laundering money. But a bank can't do anything, only people can, so its actually people who laundered the money, but the guilt is put on the bank and the bank is ordered to pay money instead of the people who commit the crime.

But the bank is just a fictional construct, how can something fictional do anything? It cant. It's just another government sanctioned way to reduce risk for the powerful.

So we agree on this one. I was not sure at first, but that may be because of the state of politics in France (the rightists are pro-corporations, so it mixes things).

Many rightist confuse free markets with corporations.

If people don't want to be productive they don't have to. A lot of people could live very simple lives if it weren't for inflation, taxation, debt and the constant need to grow the GDP to satisfy your debtors.

I honestly don't know about this one, neither on one side or another. As a general rule, I am suspicious against any magical formula, whoever announces it - a someone say "listen to the one who is looking for truth, be ware of the one who found it".

That's very true!

[David Latapie]

Invalid argument, people are richer in a free market economy cause they are more productive and productivity increase faster. Sorry but economic theory and reality prove this everyday.

I am not convinced. Take infrastructures. I requires a long-term vision to put them in place and I can't believe a free market would create them. It would create a road and plumbery for this very building and the next one and it would be done in a ad'hoc way, resulting in a lot of incompatibilities and kludges and thus loss of efficiency. Central planning has its merit. Would TCP/IP exist if it was not a central planning? We would a bunch of proprietary protocols (because it is more profitable for its creator) and we all know what is means. Not a lot of persons are ready to voluntarily lose for the greater good.

[hologram]

Can you elaborate on this?

Free market is an economy where there is very much concurrence cause there is no (minimal, just one simple tax without exemption) market distortion caused by the government. So a trust/monopoly can't stay long cause somebody will find a way to compete with the company or find a disruptive solution that kill his market.

Government intervention in the market create rigidity and distortion, big corporation can deal with them cause they have lobbyist, lot of lawyer and have a bureaucratic organization. Small can't and are killed/never created.

Some market distortion/rigidity:
 
-intellectual property
-taxes on product (don't include value added tax if it's the same rate for everything, but there is other problem with the VAT)
-different corporate taxes rate
-regulation, any kind
-investment restriction
-protectionism
-legal monopoly
-capital control
-...

[David Latapie]

You talk about how the social contract/goverment is valid because you can move from it. I point out to real examples where this isn't true.

You are "normalising the exceptionnal", taking an extreme example as if it was the common state of affair.

If we were talking about a specific government in a specific place in time that you like, please state so and we may continue the discussion there.

Let's talk about, say, Norway. This is fairly democratic and peaceful country that none of us  know well (if I choose US, I would be at a disadvantage and you would if I chose France).

OK, I quit. It seems that you main argumentation is about invoking various avatars of Godwin. I will continue this conversation with Anon136 until you revert to a more contructive argumentation.

My position is that of a moral one. You say that there is an demand for taxation and use the idea that somehow a demand for something is an argument for it. I merely point out that if you take that argument and apply it to another situation such as child porn, it doesn't hold, therefor it can never hold that demand for something makes it right.

My position is the same as Anon136, it does hold - under certain condition. But I am an utilitarist, this probably explains that.

[Jungian]

Not a lot of persons are ready to voluntarily lose for the greater good.

Total giving to charitable organizations was $335.17 billion in 2013 and growing.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

It's just that people want to give in way that makes them feel good about themselves and their deed.

ALSA told Fortune it recorded donations worth $10.1 million on Wednesday alone.
http://fortune.com/2014/08/22/ice-bucket-challenge-als-charity/

[Jungian]

You talk about how the social contract/goverment is valid because you can move from it. I point out to real examples where this isn't true.

You are "normalising the exceptionnal", taking an extreme example as if it was the common state of affair.

You are "normalising the exceptionnal", taking an extreme example as if it was the common state of affair.

I disagree. This is the normal state of affairs for a VERY large proportion of the human race.

If we were talking about a specific government in a specific place in time that you like, please state so and we may continue the discussion there.

Let's talk about, say, Norway. This is fairly democratic and peaceful country that none of us  know well (if I choose US, I would be at a disadvantage and you would if I chose France).

I know Norway quite well as I have visited yearly all my life and live close do it. I'm Swedish

[hologram]

1.I requires a long-term vision to put them in place and I can't believe a free market would create them.

2.It would create a road and plumbery for this very building and the next one and it would be done in a ad'hoc way,

3.resulting in a lot of incompatibilities and kludges and thus loss of efficiency.

4.Central planning has its merit.

1.Heavily capitalistic company (Those who need billion in investment) have long term (decades) plan, like mining company. Did you know that American railway company (in the time of the "wild west") was the biggest capitalization of American exchange ? Free market can build very big infrastructure.

2.It would improve the way we build road cause there will be concurrence and different price, we don't need first class road everywhere but company need them to move their product.

3.If government don't decide what is the language everyone will speak a different language and nobody will understand each other ? No, free market can do standardization where we need it. Did you know that big hardware company meet to decide what is HDMI, USB, WIFI, ect ?

4.In army yes, everywhere no.

[Hueristic]

[hologram]

Please tell me if somewhere my English is very bad