Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Comparing libertarianism to communism

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you think about this article. Source: http://www.globaladvisors.biz...

Most people would consider radical libertarianism and communism polar opposites: the first glorifies personal freedom, the second would obliterate it. Yet the ideologies are simply mirror images. Both attempt to answer the same questions, and fail to do so in similar ways.

Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

Let"s start with some definitions. By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values.

By communism, we mean the ideology of extreme state domination of private and economic life.

Some of the radical libertarians are Ayn Rand fans who divide their fellow citizens into makers, in the mould of John Galt, and takers, in the mould of anyone other than Galt.

Some, such as the Koch brothers, are economic royalists who repackage trickle-down economics as "libertarian populism". Some are followers of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose highest aspiration is to shut down government. Some resemble the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, who has made a career out of trying to drown, stifle or strangle government.

Yes, liberty is a core American value, and an overweening state can be unhealthy. And there are plenty of self-described libertarians who have adopted the label mainly because they support same-sex marriage or decry government surveillance. These social libertarians are not the problem. It is the nihilist anti-state libertarians of the Koch-Cruz-Norquist-Paul (Ron and Rand alike) school who should worry us.

Like communism, this philosophy is defective in its misreading of human nature, misunderstanding of how societies work and utter failure to adapt to changing circumstances.

Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish when, in fact, co-operation is the height of human evolution. It assumes that societies are efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers when, in fact, they are fragile ecosystems prone to collapse and easily overwhelmed by free-riders.

And it is fanatically rigid in its insistence on a single solution to every problem: roll back the state!

Communism failed in three strikingly similar ways. It believed that humans should be willing cogs serving the proletariat. It assumed that societies could be run top-down like machines.

And it, too, was fanatically rigid in its insistence on an all-encompassing ideology, leading to totalitarianism.

Radical libertarianism, if ever put into practice at the scale of something bigger than a tiny enclave, would also be a disaster.

We say the conditional "would" because radical libertarianism has a fatal flaw: it can"t be applied across a functioning society. What might radical libertarians do if they actually had power?

A President Paul would rule by tantrum, shutting down the government in order to repeal laws already passed by Congress. A Secretary Norquist would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and progressive taxation, so that the already wealthy could exponentially compound their advantage, as the programmes that sustain a prosperous middle class are gutted. A Koch domestic policy would obliterate environmental standards for clean air and water, so that polluters could externalise all their costs onto other people.

Radical libertarians would be great at destroying. They would have little concept of creating or governing. It is in failed states such as Somalia that libertarianism finds its fullest actual expression.

Some libertarians will claim we are arguing against a straw man and that no serious adherent to their philosophy advocates the extreme positions we describe.

The public record of extreme statements by the likes of Cruz, Norquist and the Pauls speaks for itself. Reasonable people debate how best to regulate or how government can most effectively do its work " not whether to regulate at all or whether government should even exist.

The alternative to this extremism is an evolving blend of freedom and co-operation. The relationship between social happiness and economic success can be plotted on a bell curve, and the sweet spot is away from the extremes of either pure liberty or pure communitarianism. That is where true citizenship and healthy capitalism are found.

True citizenship enables a society to thrive for precisely the reasons that communism and radical libertarianism cannot. It is based on a realistic conception of human nature that recognises we must co-operate to be able compete at higher levels. True citizenship means changing policy to adapt to changes in circumstance. Sometimes government isn"t the answer. Other times it is.

If the US is to continue to adapt and evolve, we have to see that freedom is not simply the removal of encumbrance, or the ability to ignore inconvenient rules or limitations.

Freedom is responsibility. Communism failed because it kept citizens from taking responsibility for governing themselves. By preaching individualism above all else, so does radical libertarianism.

It is one thing to oppose intrusive government surveillance or the overreach of federal programmes. It is another to call for the evisceration of government itself. Let"s put radical libertarianism into the dustbin of history, along with its cousin communism. " Bloomberg
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 5:53:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seems pretty accurate. It's amazing that libertarians condescend Marxist theories of human nature while basing their ideology off of man's ability to be perfect Homo economicus.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 12:33:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 5:53:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Seems pretty accurate. It's amazing that libertarians condescend Marxist theories of human nature while basing their ideology off of man's ability to be perfect Homo economicus.

1) Austrians (and most libertarians) think homo economicus is a silly idea.
2) Libertarians don't seek utopia or perfection of man or society or economy, rather freedom as a first principle.
3) Marxism is one of the lowest forms of an economic and sociopolitical worldviews that isn't very difficult to refute.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:47:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
What do you think about this article. Source: http://www.globaladvisors.biz...

Great article, and thanks for sourcing...=)

I found the following quote to be the most poignant:

Freedom is responsibility. Communism failed because it kept citizens from taking responsibility for governing themselves. By preaching individualism above all else, so does radical libertarianism.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 9:58:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 12:33:59 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:53:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Seems pretty accurate. It's amazing that libertarians condescend Marxist theories of human nature while basing their ideology off of man's ability to be perfect Homo economicus.

1) Austrians (and most libertarians) think homo economicus is a silly idea.

Similar enough.

2) Libertarians don't seek utopia or perfection of man or society or economy, rather freedom as a first principle.

Oxymoron.

3) Marxism is one of the lowest forms of an economic and sociopolitical worldviews that isn't very difficult to refute.

Of course. Just like Mises's unfalsifiable principles about human action.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 9:24:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation.

Which is...?

And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run

Proof?

Freedom is responsibility,

Utter nonsense. That's like me saying "good is bad." Responsibility is the opposite of freedom, or at least an opposite.

throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Pfft.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 7:25:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
What do you think about this article. Source: http://www.globaladvisors.biz...

Most people would consider radical libertarianism and communism polar opposites: the first glorifies personal freedom, the second would obliterate it. Yet the ideologies are simply mirror images. Both attempt to answer the same questions, and fail to do so in similar ways.

Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

Let"s start with some definitions. By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values.

I actually saw this article a few days ago; it was a decent read, but it messed up the communism definition to which it was based. Little c communism is a form of extreme egalitarian democracy, where there is no government because everybody has exact equal say politically. That didn't really have too much effect on the article and the point that it was trying to make, but it still irked me. That being said, I lol'd at the Somalia example, and that Ted Cruz was being described as a libertarian.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 7:28:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also (though it was somewhat inescapable for the sake of writing for the average reader), it used arguments from the libertarian's lowest common denominator... the politicians who claim to advocate it while also advocating conservatism.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 7:33:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's hard to completely sweep over two (varying and by no means homogenous) political philosophies with so little knowledge (regarding them) but so much (undue) confidence in analysis. Usually articles like these are only able to strawmann 'one' of them. But this guy was able to do both and for that he has my respect.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 10:18:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 9:24:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation.

Which is...?

Bad?

And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run

Proof?

Individual benefits don't always align with social benefits. You have the financial market as the biggest example, individual incentives of the brokers actually make it irrationally rational to engage in herd behaviour. Even if the broker knows that the fundamental value of a stock is higher than the market value, it really has no incentive to act on his belief because he'd lose his job if he did so. Even if a broker knows that a given stock is overvalued, pulling out early is as good as failing.

Even if we talk about the goods market, there are information asymmetries that can lead to market failure. Public goods, i.e., when the social benefit of providing a good is greater than the personal benefit, the markets have a tendency to underprovide, making it more efficient for the government to intervene. Public goods, externalities, perverse incentives, there ARE cases, documented cases where the market fails.

Usually while talking about government intervention, people focus on 'market excluding' role of the government, which, in most cases is admittedly non efficient. A market complementary approach, however, is preferable in a lot of cases, where the final aim is social benefit. There is no significant subversion of private incentives in these cases, and do lead to increasing social benefits.

Take education for example. As in any other area, private players have an incentive to focus on areas which would maximise their profits. So, in a poor area, a private school wouldn't really have that much of resources, because even if the school gets them, the people won't really be able to afford the resultant increasing costs. Government providing those resources (intelligently, by perhaps tying the aid to the student performance), and at least reducing the differential across states is going to have a positive impact on the marginal utility of the future human resource. It's going to ultimately increase the benefits to the society.

Obviously it can't be extended to every sector, but there are some sectors where market complementary approach by the government is going to help.

Utter nonsense. That's like me saying "good is bad." Responsibility is the opposite of freedom, or at least an opposite.

You have the freedom to do anything you want as long as you don't hurt any other person. Responsibility.

throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Pfft.

Market has inherent negative externalities that it doesn't really have the incentive to lower. One can talk of how having definable property rights is going to reduce these, but in most cases, with the harmful effects being disintegrated among a large number of people with scattered bargaining power, it is much too costly.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 10:31:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 7:25:57 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
What do you think about this article. Source: http://www.globaladvisors.biz...

Most people would consider radical libertarianism and communism polar opposites: the first glorifies personal freedom, the second would obliterate it. Yet the ideologies are simply mirror images. Both attempt to answer the same questions, and fail to do so in similar ways.

Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

Let"s start with some definitions. By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values.

I actually saw this article a few days ago; it was a decent read, but it messed up the communism definition to which it was based. Little c communism is a form of extreme egalitarian democracy, where there is no government because everybody has exact equal say politically. That didn't really have too much effect on the article and the point that it was trying to make, but it still irked me.

I can't really argue with this, lol. I hate it when people equate state socialism with communism too.

That being said, I lol'd at the Somalia example, and that Ted Cruz was being described as a libertarian.

I've noticed Somalia has become a sort of 'who made the roads argument' for the libertarians. Although I still thinks it delivers the point well, about the instability of a structure with no government, it is too much of an anomaly to be considered a example strong enough to defend.

Dunno who Ted Cruz is, but I suppose it would be pretty difficult to get a 'pure' libertarian in politics. You need to appeal to some emotions to ruffle the feathers and gain support.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).

I don't think the article really touched upon moral values. It basically went over why there is a need for both government and market in any system, and went over about the need for cooperation to sustain a society. 'Cooperation is necessary for efficient competition at a higher level', and stuff.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 11:37:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).

I don't think the article really touched upon moral values. It basically went over why there is a need for both government and market in any system, and went over about the need for cooperation to sustain a society. 'Cooperation is necessary for efficient competition at a higher level', and stuff.

It's interesting how noumena frames (what seems to be) the entirety of social interaction through a moral lens. As it is, a question that comes to mind is exactly what kind of "social moral situations" would not require cooperation?

Also what exactly is the difference between "political values" and "social values"? The existence of a hierarchy? The "contractual bonds" that tie a society together, that may or may not be necessary in simple social interaction? In which case I would ask why these "contractual bonds" (i.e. laws) are not necessary in social interaction?

IMHO the two (political value, social "moral" value) cannot be separated...much, if not all, of politics regulates social interaction. It dictates who is free and who is not free, it dictates what is proper and what is not, and IMHO it dictates what is moral and what is not, according to the standards set by the rulers of that society.

I believe ancap separates the two to the extent that it attempts to eliminate something deemed to be "political value" from society, and to stress "pure" moral values. This becomes problematic if you consider the very laws of society to be a form of morality, thus marrying the political apparatus to a society's sense of morality.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 2:00:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).

I don't think the article really touched upon moral values. It basically went over why there is a need for both government and market in any system, and went over about the need for cooperation to sustain a society. 'Cooperation is necessary for efficient competition at a higher level', and stuff.

I read the article. What I mean is, the article essentially strawmanns when it equivocated social and political values under libertarianism. Politically, it is correct that liberty is paramount under that system. Socially, it's a free for all. Cooperatives, communes, collectives, whatever are allowed for which all would fall under what you could call "cooperatve values". By moral I don't mean what I guess most would. I was simply referring to values more or less I.e., the principles upon which people vase their actions.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 2:06:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 11:37:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).

I don't think the article really touched upon moral values. It basically went over why there is a need for both government and market in any system, and went over about the need for cooperation to sustain a society. 'Cooperation is necessary for efficient competition at a higher level', and stuff.

It's interesting how noumena frames (what seems to be) the entirety of social interaction through a moral lens. As it is, a question that comes to mind is exactly what kind of "social moral situations" would not require cooperation

That's not what I meant. As I told Cenmark, I was just using the word synonymously with valuation and so forth.

Also what exactly is the difference between "political values" and "social values"? The existence of a hierarchy? The "contractual bonds" that tie a society together, that may or may not be necessary in simple social interaction? In which case I would ask why these "contractual bonds" (i.e. laws) are not necessary in social interaction?

The difference depends on who you talk to. I would say it lies in the existence or non-existence of the institutional logic of the State e.g. The processes we familiarly associate with government. Although those characteristics, for me, are to a large extent inseparable from those under modern capitalism. But I digress.

IMHO the two (political value, social "moral" value) cannot be separated...much, if not all, of politics regulates social interaction. It dictates who is free and who is not free, it dictates what is proper and what is not, and IMHO it dictates what is moral and what is not, according to the standards set by the rulers of that society.

That's a pretty large generalization. If I boycott Starbucks or Chik Fil A I'm not using a political valuation because it doesn't necessarily concur with the methodology/logic of how a government operates. For all intents and purposes (for this discussion at least) lets just put the difference at coercion vs. voluntarism as a methodology for regulating social interaction.

I believe ancap separates the two to the extent that it attempts to eliminate something deemed to be "political value" from society, and to stress "pure" moral values. This becomes problematic if you consider the very laws of society to be a form of morality, thus marrying the political apparatus to a society's sense of morality.

Not sure exactly what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 3:23:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 2:06:58 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/18/2013 11:37:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:

IMHO the two (political value, social "moral" value) cannot be separated...much, if not all, of politics regulates social interaction. It dictates who is free and who is not free, it dictates what is proper and what is not, and IMHO it dictates what is moral and what is not, according to the standards set by the rulers of that society.

That's a pretty large generalization. If I boycott Starbucks or Chik Fil A I'm not using a political valuation because it doesn't necessarily concur with the methodology/logic of how a government operates. For all intents and purposes (for this discussion at least) lets just put the difference at coercion vs. voluntarism as a methodology for regulating social interaction.

I agree it's a very large generalization, and IMHO the influence and impact of governance on our lives is also very widespread. Personally, I think that regardless of how widespread and proliferate this influence may be, the lighter the presence, the better, and it is on this note that I can find some common ground with libertarians and even anarchists.

The widespread nature of governance is inherent in your example of boycotting Starbucks or Chik Fil A. The government regulates commerce, and also regulates the citizen's right to protest. In this case, the government has not closed either of these establishments down despite "widespread" public protest (assuming that you were not alone with your grievances). Also, the government has not made any arrests of consumers despite active consumer resistance against products the government deems "legitimate".

As far as coercion vs voluntarism, regardless of citizen/corporate action here, the monopoly of violence that the government holds is ever-present and cannot be separated from the scenario. How did the citizenry voice its displeasure over the corporations? Did their boycotts involve libel and slander? Did they legally/illegally protest in front of the businesses? Are the corporations guilty of any wrongdoing?

All of these questions require government arbitration to determine. Any matter that requires government arbitration will involve coercion. Voluntarism, even in the aspect of a citizen's boycott independent of a government decision on Starbucks or Chik Fil A, is still conducted under the hand of a coercive state system.

I'm getting the feeling I'm not saying anything unfamiliar to you; I'm just painting the scenario in general and agreeable terms. I'm also aware that you probably have arguments that can properly divorce government action from voluntary activity, although personally I am unable to articulate such a perspective.

I believe ancap separates the two to the extent that it attempts to eliminate something deemed to be "political value" from society, and to stress "pure" moral values. This becomes problematic if you consider the very laws of society to be a form of morality, thus marrying the political apparatus to a society's sense of morality.

Not sure exactly what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

Basically, I hold the view that legislation is an active attempt by government to instill its sense of morality upon its charge. Any and all laws would thus also be moral edicts. This would be relatively easy to see when viewing edicts flowing from a monarch, or Moses and his Ten Commandments, as the laws were divine, and to break the law would not only be an affront to the state, it would also be an affront to God, and almost anyone who subscribed to the relevant religion would easily consider this to be immorality incarnate.

In today's system, we do not have divinity backing up the law. Instead, law is made by us, by the very society over which the government has jurisdiction. Do these laws thus lose their moral quality? IMHO no, they lose their divine quality, but we are capable of envisioning a morality fit for our own use independent of religion. Furthermore, we all have our own sense of morality, and this sense of morality differs from others' sense to the extent that our experiences differ from one another.

As morality would simply what one ought to do, In order to have a socially agreeable form of morality, society would have to come together and agree upon what members of the society should do in whatever relevant situations that would require state intervention. In order for these agreements to hold any weight on the minds of the citizenry, a coercive apparatus called "government" is called upon to properly weigh any alleged infractions of these agreements.

Hopefully this makes sense.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 9:07:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 3:23:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/18/2013 2:06:58 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/18/2013 11:37:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:

IMHO the two (political value, social "moral" value) cannot be separated...much, if not all, of politics regulates social interaction. It dictates who is free and who is not free, it dictates what is proper and what is not, and IMHO it dictates what is moral and what is not, according to the standards set by the rulers of that society.

That's a pretty large generalization. If I boycott Starbucks or Chik Fil A I'm not using a political valuation because it doesn't necessarily concur with the methodology/logic of how a government operates. For all intents and purposes (for this discussion at least) lets just put the difference at coercion vs. voluntarism as a methodology for regulating social interaction.

I agree it's a very large generalization, and IMHO the influence and impact of governance on our lives is also very widespread. Personally, I think that regardless of how widespread and proliferate this influence may be, the lighter the presence, the better, and it is on this note that I can find some common ground with libertarians and even anarchists.

K

The widespread nature of governance is inherent in your example of boycotting Starbucks or Chik Fil A. The government regulates commerce, and also regulates the citizen's right to protest. In this case, the government has not closed either of these establishments down despite "widespread" public protest (assuming that you were not alone with your grievances). Also, the government has not made any arrests of consumers despite active consumer resistance against products the government deems "legitimate".

As far as coercion vs voluntarism, regardless of citizen/corporate action here, the monopoly of violence that the government holds is ever-present and cannot be separated from the scenario. How did the citizenry voice its displeasure over the corporations? Did their boycotts involve libel and slander? Did they legally/illegally protest in front of the businesses? Are the corporations guilty of any wrongdoing?

All of these questions require government arbitration to determine. Any matter that requires government arbitration will involve coercion. Voluntarism, even in the aspect of a citizen's boycott independent of a government decision on Starbucks or Chik Fil A, is still conducted under the hand of a coercive state system.

I'm getting the feeling I'm not saying anything unfamiliar to you; I'm just painting the scenario in general and agreeable terms. I'm also aware that you probably have arguments that can properly divorce government action from voluntary activity, although personally I am unable to articulate such a perspective.

Well I definitely don't think it's as easy as shutting down the government and privatizing the roads. But getting into the knitty gritty would take up more space than is allowed for here.

I believe ancap separates the two to the extent that it attempts to eliminate something deemed to be "political value" from society, and to stress "pure" moral values. This becomes problematic if you consider the very laws of society to be a form of morality, thus marrying the political apparatus to a society's sense of morality.

Not sure exactly what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

Basically, I hold the view that legislation is an active attempt by government to instill its sense of morality upon its charge. Any and all laws would thus also be moral edicts. This would be relatively easy to see when viewing edicts flowing from a monarch, or Moses and his Ten Commandments, as the laws were divine, and to break the law would not only be an affront to the state, it would also be an affront to God, and almost anyone who subscribed to the relevant religion would easily consider this to be immorality incarnate.

In today's system, we do not have divinity backing up the law. Instead, law is made by us, by the very society over which the government has jurisdiction. Do these laws thus lose their moral quality? IMHO no, they lose their divine quality, but we are capable of envisioning a morality fit for our own use independent of religion. Furthermore, we all have our own sense of morality, and this sense of morality differs from others' sense to the extent that our experiences differ from one another.

As morality would simply what one ought to do, In order to have a socially agreeable form of morality, society would have to come together and agree upon what members of the society should do in whatever relevant situations that would require state intervention. In order for these agreements to hold any weight on the minds of the citizenry, a coercive apparatus called "government" is called upon to properly weigh any alleged infractions of these agreements.

Hopefully this makes sense.

It makes sense in that I know what yer trying to say. As far as soundness is concerned though....
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:47:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 9:07:33 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/18/2013 3:23:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/18/2013 2:06:58 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/18/2013 11:37:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:

IMHO the two (political value, social "moral" value) cannot be separated...much, if not all, of politics regulates social interaction. It dictates who is free and who is not free, it dictates what is proper and what is not, and IMHO it dictates what is moral and what is not, according to the standards set by the rulers of that society.

That's a pretty large generalization. If I boycott Starbucks or Chik Fil A I'm not using a political valuation because it doesn't necessarily concur with the methodology/logic of how a government operates. For all intents and purposes (for this discussion at least) lets just put the difference at coercion vs. voluntarism as a methodology for regulating social interaction.

I agree it's a very large generalization, and IMHO the influence and impact of governance on our lives is also very widespread. Personally, I think that regardless of how widespread and proliferate this influence may be, the lighter the presence, the better, and it is on this note that I can find some common ground with libertarians and even anarchists.

K

The widespread nature of governance is inherent in your example of boycotting Starbucks or Chik Fil A. The government regulates commerce, and also regulates the citizen's right to protest. In this case, the government has not closed either of these establishments down despite "widespread" public protest (assuming that you were not alone with your grievances). Also, the government has not made any arrests of consumers despite active consumer resistance against products the government deems "legitimate".

As far as coercion vs voluntarism, regardless of citizen/corporate action here, the monopoly of violence that the government holds is ever-present and cannot be separated from the scenario. How did the citizenry voice its displeasure over the corporations? Did their boycotts involve libel and slander? Did they legally/illegally protest in front of the businesses? Are the corporations guilty of any wrongdoing?

All of these questions require government arbitration to determine. Any matter that requires government arbitration will involve coercion. Voluntarism, even in the aspect of a citizen's boycott independent of a government decision on Starbucks or Chik Fil A, is still conducted under the hand of a coercive state system.

I'm getting the feeling I'm not saying anything unfamiliar to you; I'm just painting the scenario in general and agreeable terms. I'm also aware that you probably have arguments that can properly divorce government action from voluntary activity, although personally I am unable to articulate such a perspective.

(1) Well I definitely don't think it's as easy as shutting down the government and privatizing the roads. But getting into the knitty gritty would take up more space than is allowed for here.

I believe ancap separates the two to the extent that it attempts to eliminate something deemed to be "political value" from society, and to stress "pure" moral values. This becomes problematic if you consider the very laws of society to be a form of morality, thus marrying the political apparatus to a society's sense of morality.

Not sure exactly what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

Basically, I hold the view that legislation is an active attempt by government to instill its sense of morality upon its charge. Any and all laws would thus also be moral edicts. This would be relatively easy to see when viewing edicts flowing from a monarch, or Moses and his Ten Commandments, as the laws were divine, and to break the law would not only be an affront to the state, it would also be an affront to God, and almost anyone who subscribed to the relevant religion would easily consider this to be immorality incarnate.

In today's system, we do not have divinity backing up the law. Instead, law is made by us, by the very society over which the government has jurisdiction. Do these laws thus lose their moral quality? IMHO no, they lose their divine quality, but we are capable of envisioning a morality fit for our own use independent of religion. Furthermore, we all have our own sense of morality, and this sense of morality differs from others' sense to the extent that our experiences differ from one another.

As morality would simply what one ought to do, In order to have a socially agreeable form of morality, society would have to come together and agree upon what members of the society should do in whatever relevant situations that would require state intervention. In order for these agreements to hold any weight on the minds of the citizenry, a coercive apparatus called "government" is called upon to properly weigh any alleged infractions of these agreements.

Hopefully this makes sense.

(2) It makes sense in that I know what yer trying to say. As far as soundness is concerned though....

Hmmm...

I can think of 2 debate resolutions from this discussion:

(1) Death is not voluntary
(2) Laws Legislate Societal Morality

(1) basically questions whether or not it is possible to divorce non-voluntary actions from life itself, and for (2), I really cannot interpret laws in any other conceivable manner.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 12:18:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 2:00:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).

I don't think the article really touched upon moral values. It basically went over why there is a need for both government and market in any system, and went over about the need for cooperation to sustain a society. 'Cooperation is necessary for efficient competition at a higher level', and stuff.

I read the article. What I mean is, the article essentially strawmanns when it equivocated social and political values under libertarianism. Politically, it is correct that liberty is paramount under that system. Socially, it's a free for all. Cooperatives, communes, collectives, whatever are allowed for which all would fall under what you could call "cooperatve values". By moral I don't mean what I guess most would. I was simply referring to values more or less I.e., the principles upon which people vase their actions.

By cooperative value, I believe the article was referring to the 'cooperatives' that would put social welfare over the personal benefits, just BECAUSE it is beneficial for the society/ because of an altruistic motive. Even if such individuals are present in a libertarian wet dream society, they wouldn't really have the incentive to provide the goods and bear the costs.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 12:54:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 12:18:12 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 2:00:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).

I don't think the article really touched upon moral values. It basically went over why there is a need for both government and market in any system, and went over about the need for cooperation to sustain a society. 'Cooperation is necessary for efficient competition at a higher level', and stuff.

I read the article. What I mean is, the article essentially strawmanns when it equivocated social and political values under libertarianism. Politically, it is correct that liberty is paramount under that system. Socially, it's a free for all. Cooperatives, communes, collectives, whatever are allowed for which all would fall under what you could call "cooperatve values". By moral I don't mean what I guess most would. I was simply referring to values more or less I.e., the principles upon which people vase their actions.

By cooperative value, I believe the article was referring to the 'cooperatives' that would put social welfare over the personal benefits, just BECAUSE it is beneficial for the society/ because of an altruistic motive. Even if such individuals are present in a libertarian wet dream society, they wouldn't really have the incentive to provide the goods and bear the costs.

Personally I don't see any altruism here, rather that at times, social welfare IS a personal benefit.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 1:02:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 12:54:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 12:18:12 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 2:00:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).

I don't think the article really touched upon moral values. It basically went over why there is a need for both government and market in any system, and went over about the need for cooperation to sustain a society. 'Cooperation is necessary for efficient competition at a higher level', and stuff.

I read the article. What I mean is, the article essentially strawmanns when it equivocated social and political values under libertarianism. Politically, it is correct that liberty is paramount under that system. Socially, it's a free for all. Cooperatives, communes, collectives, whatever are allowed for which all would fall under what you could call "cooperatve values". By moral I don't mean what I guess most would. I was simply referring to values more or less I.e., the principles upon which people vase their actions.

By cooperative value, I believe the article was referring to the 'cooperatives' that would put social welfare over the personal benefits, just BECAUSE it is beneficial for the society/ because of an altruistic motive. Even if such individuals are present in a libertarian wet dream society, they wouldn't really have the incentive to provide the goods and bear the costs.

Personally I don't see any altruism here, rather that at times, social welfare IS a personal benefit.

Here referring to the real world? Or the article?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 1:06:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 1:02:17 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/19/2013 12:54:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 12:18:12 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 2:00:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).

I don't think the article really touched upon moral values. It basically went over why there is a need for both government and market in any system, and went over about the need for cooperation to sustain a society. 'Cooperation is necessary for efficient competition at a higher level', and stuff.

I read the article. What I mean is, the article essentially strawmanns when it equivocated social and political values under libertarianism. Politically, it is correct that liberty is paramount under that system. Socially, it's a free for all. Cooperatives, communes, collectives, whatever are allowed for which all would fall under what you could call "cooperatve values". By moral I don't mean what I guess most would. I was simply referring to values more or less I.e., the principles upon which people vase their actions.

By cooperative value, I believe the article was referring to the 'cooperatives' that would put social welfare over the personal benefits, just BECAUSE it is beneficial for the society/ because of an altruistic motive. Even if such individuals are present in a libertarian wet dream society, they wouldn't really have the incentive to provide the goods and bear the costs.

Personally I don't see any altruism here, rather that at times, social welfare IS a personal benefit.

Here referring to the real world? Or the article?

Both...I think the article does a decent job in generalizing an overview of the "real world".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 1:12:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think you're right about communism's error, the ignorance or denial of the selfish aspect of human nature, but I feel compelled to defend libertarianism (which I despise) against the accusation that it denies the cooperative aspect. It has been pointed out that libertarians have no problem with cooperation within the confines of property, but consider that that confinement actually indicates a greater optimism about the potential for cooperation. A Pigovian solution to pollution, for example, requires the cooperation of half a legislative body plus one; Coasian bargaining and class-action require the cooperation of the entire citizenry!

So no, libertarianism certainly cannot be accused of downplaying cooperation. Its error is rather the same as liberalism's error, which is a failure to view underlying institutions, too, as cooperative (e.g. property rights require the cooperation of non-owners and taxes require the cooperation of taxpayers) and question whether their favored institutions correspond to evolutionarily stable cooperative strategies.

Instead, they focus on morality or efficiency. While the moralists are adequately dismissed as idealists, those preoccupied with efficiency enjoy an undeserved association with realism. But in reality, an institution that doesn't correspond to evolutionarily stable strategy will, however efficient in theory, fail to be established, fail to be properly enforced and/or fail to be obeyed. This criticism applies equally to the libertarian notion that inequality doesn't matter (it evidently matters to the criminals it breeds) and the liberal notion of distributive efficiency. Evolutionary stability rather demands a strictly meritocratic approach, which is in my opinion best approximated by the new participatory economics (although its "effort", however close to merit, is admittedly distinct and, like possession and need, inspired by morality or efficiency).
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 1:13:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 1:06:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 1:02:17 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/19/2013 12:54:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 12:18:12 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 2:00:36 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/18/2013 10:39:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:05:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 9/17/2013 7:42:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/16/2013 6:33:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/13/2013 9:07:27 AM, Cermank wrote:
Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

The first part is true; but I just love the unsubstantiated and unargued for assertion that libertarianism= "catastrophe." What idiots. If I supported censorship, this is precisely the nonsense that would get you thrown into jail.

Calm yo tits bro.

Basically, he meant to point out that radical fanatic libertarianism, when it approaches anarchist capitalism, is bad because it undervalues the importance of cooperation. And by undervaluing social cooperation, (EVERY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION), the philosophy becomes harmful in the long run. Freedom is responsibility, throwing away the responsibility to your society makes the society doomed to failure.

Anarchist capitalism distinguishes between political and moral values. The dominant political values of such a scenario would be grounded in property rights (whether privately or cooperatively controlled). Where the dominant social moral values would lie is contingent on situation. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Ancap but this one is based purely out of misunderstanding, either planned or accidental (whichever you think is most likely).

I don't think the article really touched upon moral values. It basically went over why there is a need for both government and market in any system, and went over about the need for cooperation to sustain a society. 'Cooperation is necessary for efficient competition at a higher level', and stuff.

I read the article. What I mean is, the article essentially strawmanns when it equivocated social and political values under libertarianism. Politically, it is correct that liberty is paramount under that system. Socially, it's a free for all. Cooperatives, communes, collectives, whatever are allowed for which all would fall under what you could call "cooperatve values". By moral I don't mean what I guess most would. I was simply referring to values more or less I.e., the principles upon which people vase their actions.

By cooperative value, I believe the article was referring to the 'cooperatives' that would put social welfare over the personal benefits, just BECAUSE it is beneficial for the society/ because of an altruistic motive. Even if such individuals are present in a libertarian wet dream society, they wouldn't really have the incentive to provide the goods and bear the costs.

Personally I don't see any altruism here, rather that at times, social welfare IS a personal benefit.

Here referring to the real world? Or the article?

Both...I think the article does a decent job in generalizing an overview of the "real world".

Yeah, if you are referring to the personal benefits of the political parties, because of the political mileage the welfare schemes provide. Rational behaviour is what guides actions for anyone (usually. A better equivocation would be that what people believe is rational behaviour is what guides their actions).

Personal benefit isn't bad in that sense. But this is more of a semantic, though. Defining a system where the personal benefits of various individuals maximize society's welfare is kind of the objective of various economic schools.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 2:04:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 1:12:48 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
I think you're right about communism's error, the ignorance or denial of the selfish aspect of human nature, but I feel compelled to defend libertarianism (which I despise) against the accusation that it denies the cooperative aspect. It has been pointed out that libertarians have no problem with cooperation within the confines of property, but consider that that confinement actually indicates a greater optimism about the potential for cooperation. A Pigovian solution to pollution, for example, requires the cooperation of half a legislative body plus one; Coasian bargaining and class-action require the cooperation of the entire citizenry!

So no, libertarianism certainly cannot be accused of downplaying cooperation. Its error is rather the same as liberalism's error, which is a failure to view underlying institutions, too, as cooperative (e.g. property rights require the cooperation of non-owners and taxes require the cooperation of taxpayers) and question whether their favored institutions correspond to evolutionarily stable cooperative strategies.


Which would fail because of the sheer effort it requires. And the inefficiency of a corporation bargaining with all the people affected by the pollution it emits, since the transaction costs are too high. Property rights work only when we deal with problems involving small number of parties.

Cooperation is required in any society. For societies to develop, it is necessary to empower this cooperation, in a sense. For the 'weaker' people. That is where the role of government comes in. Libertarian societies do not rule our cooperation, true. But they do lack in effectively empowering the people that'd need to cooperate, thus falls short of recognizing the value of this cooperation.

Take the factories operated by General electric, for example. For three decades after the WW2, it dumped more than a million pounds of PCBs into Hudson river, polluting the 200 mile stretch. Even if GE had been willing to strike an effective bargain, providing compensation to the fishermen, how could it have done this? Millions of people inhabit that region, and PCB effects linger on for decades. Calculating individual costs and benefits would be impractical, as would one-on-one negotiations. In these cases, government is really the only one to provide some sort of balancing social costs and benefits.

Global warming can be another example.

By refusing to empower the institutions granting that'd be the 'weaker' party in these cooperation, it does, indeed, downplay cooperation.

Instead, they focus on morality or efficiency. While the moralists are adequately dismissed as idealists, those preoccupied with efficiency enjoy an undeserved association with realism. But in reality, an institution that doesn't correspond to evolutionarily stable strategy will, however efficient in theory, fail to be established, fail to be properly enforced and/or fail to be obeyed. This criticism applies equally to the libertarian notion that inequality doesn't matter (it evidently matters to the criminals it breeds) and the liberal notion of distributive efficiency. Evolutionary stability rather demands a strictly meritocratic approach, which is in my opinion best approximated by the new participatory economics (although its "effort", however close to merit, is admittedly distinct and, like possession and need, inspired by morality or efficiency).
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 3:08:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since you used a post to try to derail anarchism/libertarian ism that wasn't even yours, I guess I'll do the same. This is a 20 minute speech against statism and does a nice job of refuting everything you've said.

k
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 9:41:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 3:08:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Since you used a post to try to derail anarchism/libertarian ism that wasn't even yours, I guess I'll do the same. This is a 20 minute speech against statism and does a nice job of refuting everything you've said.

k



Loooooooooool.

I don't even... I usually don't respond to youtube videos- but that was freaking hilarious.