Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

TheoreticalLibertarianism vs RealisticLibert

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 3:18:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Theoretical Libertarianism vs. Realistic Libertarianism

lib·er·ty
NOUN:
pl. lib·er·ties

The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

When most attempt to entertain this concept in a way genuine with it's literal interpretation, the result is the modern political idea of Libertarianism, usually in the form of Minarchism. For those requiring more intellectual honesty, the result may even be Anarcho-Capitalism. But for the vast majority it is Minarchism. Both ideologies claim to be the purest form of liberty, yet there is a difference between the two. What is this difference? It seems that Minarchists have come to the conclusion that some amount of coercion is necessary to actually maximize liberty. This idea of growing liberty by taking it away is something that Ancaps abhor. For the Ancap, it is not truly Libertarianism if coercion is required to obtain it.

But perhaps the Minarchists were on to something. Of course, they say that their form of coercion is justified because it serves only to stop any and all other initiatory coercion besides itself. But if we are to decide that non-libertarian acts can sometimes be justified for the very purpose of liberty, are we not opening the doors for justifying other coercion, for the same purpose, that Minarchists do not suggest, as well?

This is precisely the idea that I am putting forward in this thread. That there is a stark difference between Libertarianism, as applied through pure theory and literal interpretation, and as applied through an actual real world net increase in the amount of liberty that society experiences. What supposed Libertarians don't seem to realize, when dealing with economics, is that free choice is not a black and white issue. There is a great degree of different market pressures that effect the decisions we all make. In their ideal Libertarian society, anything one does with their wealth is done out of voluntary choice. However, I assert, they are much less likely to truly be choosing the option that corresponds with their will. This is what separates these two ideas. That simply making a choice does not reflect a free society if the choices you have are limited and dissatisfying.

The difference between the two systems becomes clear when it comes to "redistributionist" policies. The fact is that a poor man will get much more liberty-value out of $1,000 than a rich man will. The rich man is a free man because he has no worries about his basic needs. He will eat well, sleep comfortably, be taken care of when he is sick, he is free to use his excess money on what he really wants. The poor man, on the other hand, even in a supposed Libertarian society, is not free at all. He cannot spend his money on what he truly wants because he is too worried about being able to eat, sleeping comfortably and being taken care of when he is sick. To the Libertarian, no universal health care means freedom from government control of our health and freedom from government hands in our wallets. Whereas in real world terms, it means the freedom to get sick and die.

Of course, Libertarians will just urge that the rich man is obviously free because he has earned it. The poor man is not because he is weak, lazy and stupid. But this supposed Libertarianism does not only take away liberty through poverty but also through it's ability to keep people in poverty. For the free rich man is not only free to pursue his desires but also to secure his leverage in the market to make sure it stays that way. A poor man can work as hard as he wants but the fact that he was poor to begin with is strong evidence that his condition will never meaningfully improve. A poor man might start a business but it's no match for the rich man's business. A poor man might want a job, but the other poor men can't afford to hire him and his fate is left in the hands of the rich man. The rich man will decide how much he makes, for what work, for how long, under what conditions, what sex or race he needs to be, what he can say, what he can wear. All of this is done by the poor man's choice...but not by his will. The poor man will never have free choice because he will not be able to afford education to get higher pay and he will not be able to get higher pay to afford an education. The poor man will try to improve his business but his bills will get in the way. The lower one is on the slope, the steeper it is.

So the solution is evident. Social safety is a fundamental requirement for a true Libertarian society. When people have basic needs taken care of and have high wages to work for, liberty in society experiences a net increase. This goes for many other issues as well. We are more free in a clean and safe environment. Liberty is not a black and white issue as it is often painted.

Discuss.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:44:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So basically you are saying that in theory, libertarianism practices maximum liberty and that everyone has equal liberty.

But in reality, the poor man actually has less and the rich man actually has more.

Please correct me if i'm wrong.
"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."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:45:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:36:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

"Oh yeah? And you're ugly."
~Jim Carey

I like posting useless quotes too.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:46:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:44:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
So basically you are saying that in theory, libertarianism practices maximum liberty and that everyone has equal liberty.

But in reality, the poor man actually has less and the rich man actually has more.

The problem with this is that it stems from a misinterpretation of what "liberty" actually is, basically expanding it to anything that one cannot do. Thus the only way to achieve "liberty" is complete equalization of wealth, which of course runs into it's own problems.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:46:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:44:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
So basically you are saying that in theory, libertarianism practices maximum liberty and that everyone has equal liberty.

But in reality, the poor man actually has less and the rich man actually has more.

Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Yes, that would be it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:51:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:46:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:44:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
So basically you are saying that in theory, libertarianism practices maximum liberty and that everyone has equal liberty.

But in reality, the poor man actually has less and the rich man actually has more.

The problem with this is that it stems from a misinterpretation of what "liberty" actually is, basically expanding it to anything that one cannot do. Thus the only way to achieve "liberty" is complete equalization of wealth, which of course runs into it's own problems.

Here we see where my point takes even more root. It seems to be reoccurring to me that taking any theory too literally will result in muddling the outcome. Here you take my very idea of not taking Libertarianism too literally...too literally. Yes, by theory of what I said, completely equal income would result in maximum liberty. But it continues in not being black and white. For when everyone has equal income, economic incentive ceases to exist. At this point you could rely on social incentives and have Anarcho-Communism. However, that's no longer what I support. I support finding the grey area balance between equality and economic incentivization.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 6:04:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:51:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:46:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:44:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
So basically you are saying that in theory, libertarianism practices maximum liberty and that everyone has equal liberty.

But in reality, the poor man actually has less and the rich man actually has more.

The problem with this is that it stems from a misinterpretation of what "liberty" actually is, basically expanding it to anything that one cannot do. Thus the only way to achieve "liberty" is complete equalization of wealth, which of course runs into it's own problems.

Here we see where my point takes even more root. It seems to be reoccurring to me that taking any theory too literally will result in muddling the outcome. Here you take my very idea of not taking Libertarianism too literally...too literally. Yes, by theory of what I said, completely equal income would result in maximum liberty.

How is that taking it too literally if complete wealth equalization is the logical and consistent outcome of such a definition of liberty?

But it continues in not being black and white. For when everyone has equal income, economic incentive ceases to exist.

I have to agree with you here.

At this point you could rely on social incentives and have Anarcho-Communism.

Social incentives?

However, that's no longer what I support. I support finding the grey area balance between equality and economic incentivization.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 6:17:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 6:04:03 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How is that taking it too literally if complete wealth equalization is the logical and consistent outcome of such a definition of liberty?

Because there is no clear outcome. It appears to me that keeping economic incentive would increase liberty.

Social incentives?

People are much more likely to serve each other for free than for low pay. Logically, that doesn't seem to make much sense. But it does make sense when we realize the clear difference between social incentives and economic incentives and the roles they play in society. The person working for free is working based on social incentives which could include popularity or simply feeling good about themselves. The person being payed has very different incentives.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 6:38:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:45:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:36:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

"Oh yeah? And you're ugly."
~Jim Carey

I like posting useless quotes too.

Alright, let me be clear. If you guarantee a right to someone, whether it is healthcare, money, etc. this is a positive right. In other words, in order for you to obtain it, someone else has to provide for it. Now, if a person is getting a free lunch, this will only provide greater incentives for others to join the mix. Now, you no longer have others being providers of these positive rights, but takers of them. As I stated earlier, in order to have positive rights, you must take it from other people. But none of these people are working, so nobody receives their "positive rights" and everyone starve.

Also, If you provide these "positive rights" then you also must take it at an opportunity cost, from other sources. These funds can go to investments: improving technology, making production more efficient, creating cheaper goods and services, solving future shortage problems, improve health services, etc.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:42:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Equivocate on initial and retaliatory force, they said.

Make no sense, they said.

They said Freedo could become anything he wanted.

So he became equivocation.

Influence and force are different things. Initial and retaliatory force are different things.

Social safety nets that one discusses in politics rather than with a charitable institution, and the welfare state, these are not different things; and both are incompatible with libertarianism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 12:05:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:42:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Equivocate on initial and retaliatory force, they said.

Make no sense, they said.

They said Freedo could become anything he wanted.

So he became equivocation.

Influence and force are different things. Initial and retaliatory force are different things.

Social safety nets that one discusses in politics rather than with a charitable institution, and the welfare state, these are not different things; and both are incompatible with libertarianism.

I didn't equivocate initiative and retaliatory force. At one point I mentioned initiation but for the most part it was just implied.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 12:07:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 6:38:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:45:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:36:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

"Oh yeah? And you're ugly."
~Jim Carey

I like posting useless quotes too.

Alright, let me be clear. If you guarantee a right to someone, whether it is healthcare, money, etc. this is a positive right. In other words, in order for you to obtain it, someone else has to provide for it. Now, if a person is getting a free lunch, this will only provide greater incentives for others to join the mix. Now, you no longer have others being providers of these positive rights, but takers of them. As I stated earlier, in order to have positive rights, you must take it from other people. But none of these people are working, so nobody receives their "positive rights" and everyone starve.

Also, If you provide these "positive rights" then you also must take it at an opportunity cost, from other sources. These funds can go to investments: improving technology, making production more efficient, creating cheaper goods and services, solving future shortage problems, improve health services, etc.

"in order for you to obtain it, someone else has to provide for it"...
...This is different from Capitalism?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 12:46:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 12:07:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:38:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:45:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:36:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

"Oh yeah? And you're ugly."
~Jim Carey

I like posting useless quotes too.

Alright, let me be clear. If you guarantee a right to someone, whether it is healthcare, money, etc. this is a positive right. In other words, in order for you to obtain it, someone else has to provide for it. Now, if a person is getting a free lunch, this will only provide greater incentives for others to join the mix. Now, you no longer have others being providers of these positive rights, but takers of them. As I stated earlier, in order to have positive rights, you must take it from other people. But none of these people are working, so nobody receives their "positive rights" and everyone starve.

Also, If you provide these "positive rights" then you also must take it at an opportunity cost, from other sources. These funds can go to investments: improving technology, making production more efficient, creating cheaper goods and services, solving future shortage problems, improve health services, etc.

"in order for you to obtain it, someone else has to provide for it"...
...This is different from Capitalism?

Yes. In a capitalism system, you receive goods and services If you provide goods and services.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 2:29:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 12:05:41 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:42:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Equivocate on initial and retaliatory force, they said.

Make no sense, they said.

They said Freedo could become anything he wanted.

So he became equivocation.

Influence and force are different things. Initial and retaliatory force are different things.

Social safety nets that one discusses in politics rather than with a charitable institution, and the welfare state, these are not different things; and both are incompatible with libertarianism.

I didn't equivocate initiative and retaliatory force. At one point I mentioned initiation but for the most part it was just implied.
And it was implied that all minarchists support initiation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 12:55:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 2:29:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/17/2011 12:05:41 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:42:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Equivocate on initial and retaliatory force, they said.

Make no sense, they said.

They said Freedo could become anything he wanted.

So he became equivocation.

Influence and force are different things. Initial and retaliatory force are different things.

Social safety nets that one discusses in politics rather than with a charitable institution, and the welfare state, these are not different things; and both are incompatible with libertarianism.

I didn't equivocate initiative and retaliatory force. At one point I mentioned initiation but for the most part it was just implied.
And it was implied that all minarchists support initiation.

They do. How else do you maintain a monopoly on force? Just hope that everyone is nice and goes along?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 11:26:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
FREEDO, your post assumes only one "rich man" who can hire the "poor man." In reality, there are thousands upon thousands of employing businesses out there, and not all of them are run by people you would label as "rich." The competition between these employers gives the potetnial employee a bartering tool to secure a good job.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 1:14:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 12:55:52 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/17/2011 2:29:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/17/2011 12:05:41 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:42:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Equivocate on initial and retaliatory force, they said.

Make no sense, they said.

They said Freedo could become anything he wanted.

So he became equivocation.

Influence and force are different things. Initial and retaliatory force are different things.

Social safety nets that one discusses in politics rather than with a charitable institution, and the welfare state, these are not different things; and both are incompatible with libertarianism.

I didn't equivocate initiative and retaliatory force. At one point I mentioned initiation but for the most part it was just implied.
And it was implied that all minarchists support initiation.

They do. How else do you maintain a monopoly on force?
You retaliate against those who initiate force against your jurisdictional property.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.