Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-01 22:05:30

Here, let's examine this statement at the end of the post: Socialism -> War
Free (Unregulated & Untaxed) Markets -> Peace
Taxation is the fuel of War
The "Assault Weapons" Ban Must Die

A few ideas. First, capitalism is by its very nature regulated by the federal government. If it were not regulated by the federal government, then it would simply be warlordism, because I could go over to my competitor, and, in a magnificent display of free market ingenuity, shoot him in the head. The "free market" would soon degrade into a system where powerful people, in admiriable displays of individual initiative, coerced everyone else into terrible suffering. Of couse, that's essentially what happens in more regulated versions of capitalism as well, but in a somewhat less brutal manner.

"Free markets" is a system where the most brutal forms of oppression at the hands of the greedy and powerful are barred by other forces (which must have roots in some level of popular support, I think), but otherwise, oppression is free to proceed underhindered, as the masters exploit everyone else in remarkable displays of "individual initiative", subjugating people for "the profit motive", alongside such admirable people as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, who had similar goals, although more potent means for achieving them. In our society, this is done by establishing control of the main institutions ; once such control is established, there is little for everyone else to do but bow down and be waiters.

Taxation is not the fuel of war ; greed is the fuel of war. You want something that you cannot have, so you make war to take it. If taxation is something which is done by a few to increase their own power, then yes I would say this fuels war. But if taxation is a process in which wealth and power is taken away from the few and given to the many, then this is something entirely different. Then you would be promoting individualism, if the word is to retain any meaning.

Starship Trooper · 2003-04-01 22:45:03

Taken from your link:
"No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation."- L. Neil Smith
Ah, wisdom in these words.
Now, since none of us live in Shangra-La, how exactly do we ENFORCE this well thought out nugget of wisdom WITHOUT violating its very principle?
Tell em, "You shouldn't do that," to death?

Go back and read the Non-Aggression Principle again - it only prohibits the initiation of force or fraud - it says nothing about defensive or retaliatory force.

The ?Non-Aggression Principle,? would be anarchistic, not Libertarian in the right-libertarian sense. Appropriation goes completely against this Non-Aggression Principle.

Define "anarchistic" as opposed to "right-libertarian."

A few ideas. First, capitalism is by its very nature regulated by the federal government. If it were not regulated by the federal government, then it would simply be warlordism, because I could go over to my competitor, and, in a magnificent display of free market ingenuity, shoot him in the head. The "free market" would soon degrade into a system where powerful people, in admiriable displays of individual initiative, coerced everyone else into terrible suffering. Of couse, that's essentially what happens in more regulated versions of capitalism as well, but in a somewhat less brutal manner.

I'm guessing that Alexander is using the Marxian definition of capitalism here, not the Randian. Irrelevant, but then again, this mischaracterization of the free market is rather funny.

"Free markets" is a system where the most brutal forms of oppression at the hands of the greedy and powerful are barred by other forces (which must have roots in some level of popular support, I think), but otherwise, oppression is free to proceed underhindered, as the masters exploit everyone else in remarkable displays of "individual initiative", subjugating people for "the profit motive", alongside such admirable people as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, who had similar goals, although more potent means for achieving them. In our society, this is done by establishing control of the main institutions ; once such control is established, there is little for everyone else to do but bow down and be waiters.

So how is that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Polt, Mao, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, and Saddam Hussein established control of "the main institutions" and then used those "main institutions" to kill millions? Hitler was democratically elected to power in 1933, using the legal apparatus of the Weimar Republic and the Reichstag. Didn't he have plenty of popular support?

And for Hitler and the others brought up here - how were any of them leaning towards free market economics in the slightest?

Taxation is not the fuel of war ; greed is the fuel of war. You want something that you cannot have, so you make war to take it. If taxation is something which is done by a few to increase their own power, then yes I would say this fuels war.

That's exactly what's happening - "the few" are using taxation to increase their own power and fatten their wallets. As far as "greed" goes, the term applies when someone wants something from someone else but isn't willing to deal with the other person on a consensual basis, so they resort to force to get what they want.

But if taxation is a process in which wealth and power is taken away from the few and given to the many, then this is something entirely different. Then you would be promoting individualism, if the word is to retain any meaning.

NO, this is NOT individualism. This is simply using the force of government to steal and plunder. The fact that it's being given to "the many" as opposed to "the few" is irrelevant. It's just a cop-out for those too cowardly to steal for themselves. Instead, they delegate the task to the IRS, state agencies, etc.

- Mike Blessing

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-01 23:57:30

Define "anarchistic" as opposed to "right-libertarian."

Anarchistic is right-libertarian without the idea that you can appropriate endlessly (to put it very simply). Anarchism realizes that control of resources also plays a very important role in how free you truely are, right-libertarianism does not (BTW, if you read earlier in this thread, libertarianism originally meant anarchism, the word was hijacked, and so one must differentiate; anarchism and left-libertarianism are synonymous. Libertarianism is right-libertarianism).

I'm guessing that Alexander is using the Marxian definition of capitalism here, not the Randian.

No, he's talking about laissez-faire capitalism... which would, as far as I know, be Randian. Alexander probably should have correctly noted that any successful form of capitalism that didn't result in depotism and suffering for a large part of the population, was one that incorporated at least some level of management not characteristic with laissez-faire.

Wait until I get done reading Atlas Shrugged. If you stick around long enough you can read my scathing review in the Recent books you've Read thread.

Irrelevant, but then again, this mischaracterization of the free market is rather funny.

Actually, I disagree. The thought that a free market could even exist in a system in which natural monopolies went unowned or controlled by the public is rather funny; which is basically what we get with laissez-faire capitalism.

soph · 2003-04-02 05:40:41

No system could exist unregulated. A system without laws is no different, in any case, from what Alexander described.

clark · 2003-04-02 10:07:09

Go back and read the Non-Aggression Principle again - it only prohibits the initiation of force or fraud - it says nothing about defensive or retaliatory force.

Ah, then you are basing a philosphical point of view on sophistry and word games.

This non-aggression principle says basically we cant intiate force. So, since this simple little statement precludes the idea of defensive or retailatory use of force, we are therefore at liberty to intiate force in defense or in retaliation.

I thought libertarians didn't like lawyers, which mankes me wonder why you play lawyer games: twisting words and statements to fit a predefined view, regardless of what the actual statement is read as.

You support a politcal view, which you try to sumerize in a cute sentence as the solution to all our politcal problems. Yet your cute little statement, once understood in its totality, is little more than suggesting the same politcal system we have now.

The government, whom you decry, does not intitate force, as your principle would have. The government intiates force in self-defense, or in retaliation. At those moments in our history, where force is not intiated in self-defense or retaliation, we have scandals, we have unjust wars.

And we have a system of checks and balances to deal with them. Of course, this system only works properly when all people are engaged in the system- but then again, it is our right not to be engaged, at least that would be the libertarian point of view, no?

It seems the libertarian point of view is "we will punish you after the fact if you screw up, so be on your best behaviour"

The non-libertarian view seems to be, "Let's right down the rules, and check occasionaly to make sure people are following the rules, so everyone knows what the rules are, and everyone knows that the rules are being applied to all."

That way I can eat a hamburger without worrying (to much) about getting food poisioning.

the libertarian would always have to worry (alot), but at least he would be safe in knowing that his death by unsanitary cooking procedures will be avenged.... maybe.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-02 11:51:23

Yes clark!

If, for example, you caused someones death from unsanitary food preparation you should be punished. Now, the punishments would have to be a lot tougher than they are today. No slaps on the wrists with a month in jail for murder anymore. I'm thinking labor camps instead of jails (make them pay their own way). If they ever get out of the labor camps, garnish their wages for the rest of their lives. That kind of stuff. And, let's not forget to make every business persons' history easy to access so consumers know who to avoid.

Now, a business can avoid these nasty punishments in several ways. The easiest would be to subject itself to a private regulatory agency. (Just like the current government agencies, but more efficient.) This would shift all or part of the liability to that agency. Most big businesses would go for this because it would give consumers a lot of confidence.

Small businesses would probably just follow generally accepted practices and cater to people who weren't sue happy. By the way, individuals would also have their records readily available to businesses. The business could refuse to serve them if they were deamed an unnexceptable risk (i.e. sue happie).

clark · 2003-04-02 12:24:18

If, for example, you caused someones death from unsanitary food preparation you should be punished.

Fat lot of good that does me, the person who ate the hamburger. I'm dead now.

Now, the punishments would have to be a lot tougher than they are today.

"hey, Jimmy, what're you in fer?"
"40 years for not washin my hands."

Very progressive.

I'm thinking labor camps instead of jails (make them pay their own way).

Ah, so we have people in jail for life, for making stupid mistakes, working in prison camps, becoming little more than state-owned slaves.

Sounds like summer camp in a gulag in wonderful Soviet Russia.

If they ever get out of the labor camps, garnish their wages for the rest of their lives.

Becuase economic punishment after time served for a crime reduces instances of repeat behavior...

One of the tragedies of our current legal system is that after a silly crime, one can be penalized with a felony. this effectively limits your opportunites after you serve your time. This leads to greater instances of repeat offenses becuase of a serious lack of real economic opportunity to improve ones life. This solves nothing.

And, let's not forget to make every business persons' history easy to access so consumers know who to avoid.
By the way, individuals would also have their records readily available to businesses.

In other words, no one has any privacy. In fact, it seems it is mandated that we have no personal privacy, in order for this system to work.

What if I don't want to share my personal business? Will you compel me to? That would be a violation of your principles, so I would imagine that you would say I could opt out, but then I open myself up to the consquences of not opting in- right? If you think that, then you are playing games. A system set-up where inclusion is voluntary, but I have no REAL option to not be included and thrive, then I have only one REAL option.

It's like pointing a gun to my head and saying I can choose to go along with you, or not, but if I don't, I die. Is that really a choice?

Now, a business can avoid these nasty punishments in several ways. The easiest would be to subject itself to a private regulatory agency. (Just like the current government agencies, but more efficient.)

LOL! Oh my friend, you have much to learn. Why don't you go check out Enron and the other financial regulatory systems and see what happens without governmental oversight.

Who makes sure the private regulating agencies are accurate? Other regulating agencies? Who checks them? Other regulating agencies? Where does it end? Your system would produce an ungodly Hydra that no single individual would ever hope to understand- we would be too busy checking the credintals of the regulating agency of the regulating agency of that regulating agency ad infinitum.

This would shift all or part of the liability to that agency. Most big businesses would go for this because it would give consumers a lot of confidence.

I am confident in the FDA. I am not confident in people who do not answer to me. I am not confident in a system I have no ability to influence.

Small businesses would probably just follow generally accepted practices and cater to people who weren't sue happy.

Ah, you can show me your personal records, then we can do business, or, you can sign this wavier absolving me of any liability for anything, even if it is clearly your fault.

"Wait, on second thought, sign the waiver or we can't do business. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Oh, that's right, there is nowhere else, this is a contract that our private regulating agency has everyone sign in order to limit their libaility for not really watching us."

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-02 12:53:32

Well, about Enron.

If my idea of the 2 law system - no lying and no force - were in place with severe penalties attached, then the people Enron hurt would be compensated (in time) with the garnishing of wages or confiscating of property of the directors of the company.

The transition to this system would be difficult the way I've been putting it, but once people started telling the truth and stopped hurting eachother it would work (utopian view, of course). Therefore, to make the transition easier, we would change/delete (mainly delete) unnecessary laws and govt programs one at a time.

For example: Cosmetology - Currently you have to go through expensive schools and get licensed TO CUT HAIR!!! I don't care if my barber went to school. If he can cut my hair the way I like I'll patronize him. If he can't he has two options - learn how to do it right or find another line of work. Nobody (except movie stars) would sue over a bad haircut, so he doesn't have to worry about that. He can't kill anybody by giving them a bad haircut, so why should his business be regulated. It just wastes tax dollars. His prices will be cheaper if he doesn't have to make up the expenses of initial and continuing education and licencing. The govt need not worry about bad haircuts.

If the majority of people think an industry is to dangerous to deregulate then we don't have to. I might like our nuclear reactors well regulated.

I might have mentioned this one before but we could give companies the option to opt out of the system. Any business that doesn't want to deal with the FDA or other agencies can just stamp "unregulated" on all of their products. This way if consumers are scared of buying "unregulated" green-colored meat (wimps) they can just go with the regulated version.

Surely some of our laws can benefit from Libertarianism.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-02 13:00:27

I'm guessing that Alexander is using the Marxian definition of capitalism here, not the Randian

I have no idea what the Marxist definition of capitalism is, or the Randist definition. I simply constructed my own definition: a system where people compete with other people to secure resources under their control. In really "free market", then, there would be no controls on how you could go about doing this. So, the quickest way to profit would simply to get a bunch of guys together and go kill everyone else and take their stuff. I mean, you can insist on (illogical, in my view) modifications to the definition, and say that this isn't really capitalism, but the fact is that capitalism is a system based on securing personal wealth and, if not restrained in some way, this is what this desire will lead to. So I think I am justified in calling this system of absolutely corrupt warlordism "really free markets" or the like.

There are several alternatives ; one is to have a system where the main institutions of society are still controlled by individuals whose goal it is (this goal being dictated by the system's architecture) to secure personal wealth and power, but in which such power is countered by democratic forces in the society somewhat. This is the welfare state. However, the other alternative is to get rid of such control altogether and replace it with fundamentally democratic control. People would work toward goals not because they want to secure personal power, or are coerced by those who have such power, but because they believe those goals are valuable in themselves. This is libertarian socialism, or anarchism.

As to dictators and the "free market", a dictatorship is a system in the "really free market" mentioned above, where one person has won out over all the others in a specific geographic area.

As for individualism, this is furthered by a state of affairs in which individuals are free to choose their own actions, and structure their lives, without the interference of the will of others. If a small group controls the main institutions of society, and can allow and disallow access to anyone they like, then this clearly enters massively into the lives of everyone else, who must meet their demands, and generally be waiters to power. This is not a humanistic or individualistic arrangement.

clark · 2003-04-02 13:14:10

Surely some of our laws can benefit from Libertarianism.

I am inclined to agree. I also believe that our laws can benefit from anarchism, socialism, capitalism, facism, communism, and just about any other "-ism" you can think of. Yet each system looks at the world differently, and each system is utterly repugnant in its practical form. Why is that? Becuase theses isms are based on phiolosphical ideal-'ism'. They envision perfect systems, yet ignore that every perfect system must be based on imperfect parts that are supposed to make it work.

I have a strong distrust of any and all politcal, idiological, religious, cultural, or social ideals becuase they all claim the same thing- that their way, and only their way, is the path to enlightenment and prosperity.

It just ain't so.

There are elements in ever view that have merit, that have solutions to pieces of the problem, but none account for all problems, all the time.

So what point is there in declaring that absolute "whatever" is the solution? It can't be. If it were inherently the right thing, then it's value would be apparent to all. But the very fact i can sit here and show you some rather obvious flaws to this idea ought to tell you something.

I think libertarism has value, that there are pieces of its philosphy that can be useful. However, the attempt at realization of the ideal would lead to less, not more, for all of us.

Byron · 2003-04-02 13:28:32

Guys, if you want libertarianism, encourage everyone to stop spending money and bring about an economic depression. If this depression is severe enough (unemployment > 40%), the government would become so overwelmed with the drop in tax revenue and increased expenses that it would simply go belly-up, and all those "alphabet soup" agencies would go the way of the Edsel. Taxes on all levels would have to be cut to almost nothing, as people would no longer be able to afford to pay them, and yes, people would just have to learn how to be honest with each other, as well as exhibiting compassion for our fellow humans, as there would be no more support from the great cow udder in the sky. It is only during times of great, universal hardship when real change occurs. Of course, this would mean that we would have to endure a much lower standard of living, and a great deal of the progress we have made in the past century would be undone, but hey, it'd be totally worth it if there was no more IRS or Inland Revenue to deal with anymore..lol..

So, take your pick...continue with the system we have now, perhaps with some "common sense" improvements, or flip the game board and start over altogether with your new "social order"...

B

clark · 2003-04-02 13:33:16

So, take your pick...continue with the system we have now, perhaps with some "common sense" improvements, or flip the game board and start over altogether with your new "social order"...

I suggest both. :;):

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-02 21:40:59

soph

No system could exist unregulated.

Who suggested that at all? Even Libertarianism regulates to a point where one can't initiate a certain kind of non-defensive or relatatory force (which of course, some in this thread would fail to realize, could be quite broad, especially if we don't consider that resources play a key role into how free you are).

A system without laws is no different, in any case, from what Alexander described.

Sure, but the question this thread is trying to answer, I think, is which system mixes the best use of law, liberty, equality and so on. Which system is the most just system? Libertarians claim it is theres. Libertarianism is probably the most common political discussion I have ever come across on the internet. It's also probably one of the most dishonest, too.

Indeed, the non-aggression principle could be interpreted in entirely negative ways. The oils strikers in Venezuela recently could justify their strike (and I'm sure many a Libertarian would justify the strike this way) by saying that they did it because they were ?defending? themselves because Venesuala was nationalizing the oil. Wow, what a way to interpret something which on the face of things seems so clear!

clark, you knew dang good and well that they meant that initiation is only allowed when the act of non-initation is endangered. Almost all principles include a self-limiting factor. The Constitution allows freedom of expression, but if you do something treasonous, don't expect it to protect you.

Byron, your scenario is interesting, but I think that one of the tenents of Libertarianism is the ?free market.? It would go against everything Libertarianism was about to ?stop spending,? and in fact, the Libertarians might take it as an ?act of aggression,? and ?defend themselves? by hording essentials so that demand is risen and they can continue to profit!

clark · 2003-04-03 06:02:25

clark, you knew dang good and well that they meant that initiation is only allowed when the act of non-initation is endangered.

What I know is not the point. How they present their position, is.

By and large, many will advocate the ideals of libertarianism, without accounting for the flaws. They often claim to have a low opinion of lawyers, or bueracratic loopholes and word games.

So why the heck would you develop a position that is built on the same rhetoric that you claim to oppose?

dicktice · 2003-04-03 11:39:27

There's joiners, for the sake of joining, and then there's joiners who want to figure out how to get to Mars-and-back as soon as possible...get my drift...?

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-03 14:19:41

I just wonder what the Libertarian position is on using life support systems in space. Should they be publicly owned, or individually owned?

I think for small scale systems, they'd be individually owned, obviously. A small mobile hab doesn't need to be publicly owned or controlled. But for large colonies or domes, each sector would have a life support system (I believe strongly in redundency), so life support would be publicly owned by whoever lived in a sector. If you think about it, though, a sector could be as small as a family sized hab, so potentially, everything is still individually owned, it's just publicly used to benefit more people.

clark · 2003-04-03 14:26:33

Should they be publicly owned, or individually owned?

Publicaly owned. We'll just make the power privately owned.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-03 14:39:12

Yeah

Deregulated, too.

clark · 2003-04-03 15:03:13

With government subsidies and tax exempt credits.

Auqakah · 2003-04-06 10:33:31

Do you think this statement is true, or not true:

'Freedom is relativistic. That is, that 'freedom' is only true freedom when the circumstances allow for it in the manner that the particular 'freedom' (meaning one unit of freedom, if that's possible) can be classified or defined.'

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-06 15:47:41

It is false.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-06 22:17:05

Auqakah,
I'm an example man.
How about an example to clarify that little question?

Gennaro · 2003-04-07 17:25:01

Considering that any Mars settlement will have to be tax funded for generations, I find it somewhat odd that libertarianism and every sort of anarchic or capitalist ideologies hold such a notable sway over many people wanting to go there.

Kind of counter productive, I reckon. Well, that's just my humble opinion.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-07 17:55:14

I don't recall the first American settlements being tax funded, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Is the X-Prize tax funded? (I think not.) Why can't people either 1) hitch a ride with whoever wants to charge them or 2) save up enough money to build their own ship?

Truely, getting there is most of the problem. NASA has shown that tax funding doesn't get us anywhere with regards to manned space flight, because there's just too much bureaucracy involved. I remind my brother, during our Mars-related conversations, of the KISS philosophy. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Anything that is tax funded, generally, wouldn't qualify as a settlement or colonization effort.

Gennaro · 2003-04-07 19:40:06

I don't recall the first American settlements being tax funded, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

- That's because colonization of the Americas payed for itself by hugely lucrative exports of tobacco, sugar, fur and indigo. What will the Mars colony be exporting in exchange for the substantial amounts of sophisticated merchandise it needs just to sustain itself? Martian cultivated cabbages just won't do.

Truely, getting there is most of the problem. NASA has shown that tax funding doesn't get us anywhere with regards to manned space flight, because there's just too much bureaucracy involved.

- Well then, trash the bureacracy and change the priorities. A mission to Mars is a political matter. The only thing lacking is political will power.

Anything that is tax funded, generally, wouldn't qualify as a settlement or colonization effort.

- I don't know, maybe you are right. I won't turn this discussion into a dispute over semantics though.

By the way, I can't remember having that KISS philosopy conversation. Nevertheless, sounds like a philosophy I'd be ready to subscribe to. The faster ordinary people can turn into brave Mars pioneers, the better in my opinion.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-04-01 22:05:30

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#27 2003-04-01 22:45:03

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#28 2003-04-01 23:57:30

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#29 2003-04-02 05:40:41

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#30 2003-04-02 10:07:09

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#31 2003-04-02 11:51:23

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#32 2003-04-02 12:24:18

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#33 2003-04-02 12:53:32

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#34 2003-04-02 13:00:27

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#35 2003-04-02 13:14:10

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#36 2003-04-02 13:28:32

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#37 2003-04-02 13:33:16

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#38 2003-04-02 21:40:59

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#39 2003-04-03 06:02:25

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#40 2003-04-03 11:39:27

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#41 2003-04-03 14:19:41

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#42 2003-04-03 14:26:33

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#43 2003-04-03 14:39:12

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#44 2003-04-03 15:03:13

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#45 2003-04-06 10:33:31

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#46 2003-04-06 15:47:41

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#47 2003-04-06 22:17:05

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#48 2003-04-07 17:25:01

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#49 2003-04-07 17:55:14

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#50 2003-04-07 19:40:06

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

Board footer