Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A vindication of thick libertarianism

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 10:06:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thick libertarianism is a variant of libertarianism associated with anti-authoritarian attitudes towards both the State as well as markets. Its used in relation to thin libertarianism which is basically the libertarian view which only focuses on States, leaving markets as something inherently self-justifying/preferable.

Libertarians/anarchists define themselves by their anti-authoritarianism and hence anti-statism. They don't want some overarching authoritarian institution controlling people's lives. It just so happens that the most obvious instance of this is the State (at least in the eyes of right wing libertarians). But it seems inconsistent to put so much energy into arguing against one authoritarian institution while seemingly ignoring others ex. hierarchical/authoritarian corporate structures, instances of market-supported racism, sexism, and other de facto instances of authoritarianism.

Liberals tend to notice/focus on these more but just end up replacing shltty capitalist structures with mega-shltty government ones. And when libertarians only refute/argue against the liberal answers the popular idea that libertarians don't care about things like poverty is enforced. So even though liberals aren't actually helping, the average person is thinking "at least they're trying". The appeal of thick libertarianism is that it actually takes anti-authoritarianism to its logical limits and challenges liberalism's self-placement as *the* social responsibility philosophy.

It irks me when I see libertarians who don't seem to actually talk about solutions to social problems, but focus more on the reasons government is fvcking things up. I don't like Obamacare/welfare/etc. but I like the idea of simply removing it assuming the market will just work everything out even less.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 10:30:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 10:24:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I doubt anybody actually thinks the market is supposed to work out for everyone. Some people are supposed to die.

Wut.
: 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.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 10:35:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 10:30:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:24:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I doubt anybody actually thinks the market is supposed to work out for everyone. Some people are supposed to die.

Wut.

That's how capitalism works. Some people are supposed to be unemployed. Some people who cannot work are supposed to die; we shouldn't help them.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 10:36:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 10:35:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:30:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:24:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I doubt anybody actually thinks the market is supposed to work out for everyone. Some people are supposed to die.

Wut.

That's how capitalism works. Some people are supposed to be unemployed. Some people who cannot work are supposed to die; we shouldn't help them.

I don't think I've ever heard free marketers say people shouldn't be helped (not counting LK or dumb Objectivists). I was referring to a general lack of interest.
: 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.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:14:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How does one oppose authority to such a stringent level? Doesn't one have authority over their property? If that is the case, then they also have some degree of authority over anyone that chooses to be on their property, right (follow my rules while in my house)? How does any kind of company function if the owners do not have some degree of authority over their employees?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:20:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:14:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
How does one oppose authority to such a stringent level?

It's not as stringent as might seem on first glance. I'm not saying no authority should exist, only that opposing State authoritarianism while ignoring market/community instances of such is inconsistent.

Doesn't one have authority over their property? If that is the case, then they also have some degree of authority over anyone that chooses to be on their property, right (follow my rules while in my house)?

I don't see how having ownership over one's property is necessarily inconsistent with the OP. The point of it was to point out an inconsistency in opinion, not a complete denial of the concept of authority outright.

How does any kind of company function if the owners do not have some degree of authority over their employees?

I've said somewhere before I would favor market syndicalism as opposed to the currently dominant trend.
: 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.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:20:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 10:35:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:30:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:24:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I doubt anybody actually thinks the market is supposed to work out for everyone. Some people are supposed to die.

Wut.

That's how capitalism works. Some people are supposed to be unemployed. Some people who cannot work are supposed to die; we shouldn't help them.

There are voluntary mechanisms to remedy those problems. Some people love helping others and set up charities, soup kitchens, mental clinics, outreaches, etc. Companies, private contributors, and other organizations work to provide extra funding to these institutions. Even homeless people who are too violent, crazy, or addicted are given food, water, money, clothes, blankets, etc from passer-bys. If you're trying to imply that we need a government to help these people, it simply can't be made morally or logically. Extorting money from some people to pay for the act annuls any moral benefit from the situation; private charities are, on average, 233% more efficient in aiding people in need. The last point I'll mention is that, on capitalism, unemployment is low, real wages rise much faster, and more stuff is produced; therefore, fewer people are in need and the people who remain in need have their essential needs met much more readily, because the average person has more income and property that can be given to charitable causes.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:29:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:20:34 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:14:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
How does one oppose authority to such a stringent level?

It's not as stringent as might seem on first glance. I'm not saying no authority should exist, only that opposing State authoritarianism while ignoring market/community instances of such is inconsistent.

But then why is focusing on those two types of authoritarianism, while ignoring others not inconsistent? Where and why do you draw a line that those cases of authority are bad, but these cases are not?


Doesn't one have authority over their property? If that is the case, then they also have some degree of authority over anyone that chooses to be on their property, right (follow my rules while in my house)?

I don't see how having ownership over one's property is necessarily inconsistent with the OP. The point of it was to point out an inconsistency in opinion, not a complete denial of the concept of authority outright.

How does any kind of company function if the owners do not have some degree of authority over their employees?

I've said somewhere before I would favor market syndicalism as opposed to the currently dominant trend.

Does that not create a market authority? I know there are verities of syndicalism, but don't most (correct me if it is not your particular cup of tea) focus on direct democracy or at least workplace democracy? If it is democratic on any level, then there are those that may not be in favor of something that passes, and so that thing that passed will be enforced upon them by the authority of the democracy (which would be either a local community or workplace).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:30:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
For the record, I'm not a "thick Libertarian."

I do not have a staunch opposition to ALL authority. I support limited government, I support parent discipline, and school rules.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:38:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:29:52 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:20:34 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:14:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
How does one oppose authority to such a stringent level?

It's not as stringent as might seem on first glance. I'm not saying no authority should exist, only that opposing State authoritarianism while ignoring market/community instances of such is inconsistent.

But then why is focusing on those two types of authoritarianism, while ignoring others not inconsistent? Where and why do you draw a line that those cases of authority are bad, but these cases are not?

A bit of utilitarian reasoning on my part. Society can function/exist without States and most forms of social authoritarianism. Property in some form though is a necessity in order for society to function.

How does any kind of company function if the owners do not have some degree of authority over their employees?

I've said somewhere before I would favor market syndicalism as opposed to the currently dominant trend.

Does that not create a market authority? I know there are verities of syndicalism, but don't most (correct me if it is not your particular cup of tea) focus on direct democracy or at least workplace democracy? If it is democratic on any level, then there are those that may not be in favor of something that passes, and so that thing that passed will be enforced upon them by the authority of the democracy (which would be either a local community or workplace).

Again, see above. I'm against authority as much as possible. Some forms are necessary though as I've admitted now several times. Barring individualistic experience machines, utopia is unlikely to exist. So the point is to push the limits of authoritarian relationships. A market economy is necessary imo. Syndicates seem to be the least authoritarian form of market organization while still being functional.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:39:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:30:08 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
For the record, I'm not a "thick Libertarian."

I do not have a staunch opposition to ALL authority. I support limited government, I support parent discipline, and school rules.

Thick libertarianism doesn't oppose *all* authority. It just doesn't focus on State authoritarianism while seemingly ignoring market/social instances.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:47:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
^^On WSA's post above, it brings up an important point. Whenever someone critiques markets based on basically people acting like dlcks, I think it brings up a larger, more fundamental point. The counters proposed in place (the State, communes, etc.) aren't somehow conceptually full of charitable, compassionate people who will simply be nice all the time. Regardless of the institutional framework in place for society, people aren't going to change at their base. The trick is to figure out which institutional framework best accommodates/restricts human instincts/values.
: 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.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:49:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with the right (on the american political spectrum) is that they see state authority as an inherent danger, with a tendency to become corrupted, but do not see this with corporate authority.

The problem with the left is that they see corporate authority as an inherent danger, with a tendency to become corrupted - by greed and power - and work self-servingly toward those goals to the detriment of the 99%... But do not see this with government authority.

Neither contain ideologically consistency. If they did, they'd either be cool with both government and corporate power or opposed to both. It seems to me generally an arbitrary and unreasonable distinction that both sides make.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:54:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:49:44 AM, jat93 wrote:
The problem with the right (on the american political spectrum) is that they see state authority as an inherent danger, with a tendency to become corrupted, but do not see this with corporate authority.

The problem with the left is that they see corporate authority as an inherent danger, with a tendency to become corrupted - by greed and power - and work self-servingly toward those goals to the detriment of the 99%... But do not see this with government authority.

Neither contain ideologically consistency. If they did, they'd either be cool with both government and corporate power or opposed to both. It seems to me generally an arbitrary and unreasonable distinction that both sides make.

Pretty much this. Take off your myopic blinders man.

*imagine this is my face when I said that*
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com...)
: 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.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 6:52:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:20:56 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:35:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:30:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:24:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I doubt anybody actually thinks the market is supposed to work out for everyone. Some people are supposed to die.

Wut.

That's how capitalism works. Some people are supposed to be unemployed. Some people who cannot work are supposed to die; we shouldn't help them.

There are voluntary mechanisms to remedy those problems. Some people love helping others and set up charities, soup kitchens, mental clinics, outreaches, etc.
Charities eat up all the money they're supposed to help people with, and many of those other endeavors are funded by the government.
Companies, private contributors, and other organizations work to provide extra funding to these institutions.
Tax breaks and many are funded by the government.
Even homeless people who are too violent, crazy, or addicted are given food, water, money, clothes, blankets, etc from passer-bys.
I live in NYC; I see people getting 0 help all the time.
If you're trying to imply that we need a government to help these people, it simply can't be made morally or logically.
I never said that we need a government. I believe in a community working together to ensure that everyone can live a happy life. I simply said that it doesn't work under capitalism.
Extorting money from some people to pay for the act annuls any moral benefit from the situation; private charities are, on average, 233% more efficient in aiding people in need.
That's is malarkey. Private charities consume massive amounts of funds for the directors' Ferraris and private charities receive funds from the government anyways.
The last point I'll mention is that, on capitalism, unemployment is low,
Zimbabwe has such a high unemployment rate
real wages rise much faster,
Until you pay people with cans of soup and give them nonsensical loans.
and more stuff is produced; therefore, fewer people are in need

Actually, if you want to prove any of this true, you have to look at the societies we stole and killed form in order to maintain capitalism. We demolished Africa to have capitalism here today. Resources have to come from somewhere since they are finite, and we and the Europeans stole a ton from Africa, killed a massive portion of the population, depopulated it through slavery, seized control of their natural resources through violence (so much for capitalist respect for property rights), use those resources today even though they should belong to Africans, use slave labor, etc.
and the people who remain in need have their essential needs met much more readily, because the average person has more income and property that can be given to charitable causes.

Maybe in our society but not in the societies we stole the resources from. Of course, they don't matter to you. As long as you have an iPhone, who cares if 200 Africans died in the process of making it?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 6:59:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In an indivualistic society in which people are in constant competition for success, it is to your advantage if people die.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 7:17:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I lived in an AnCap world, I would never care about helping other people. My very survival would depend on being better than as many people as possible.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 7:37:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:49:44 AM, jat93 wrote:
The problem with the right (on the american political spectrum) is that they see state authority as an inherent danger, with a tendency to become corrupted, but do not see this with corporate authority.

The problem with the left is that they see corporate authority as an inherent danger, with a tendency to become corrupted - by greed and power - and work self-servingly toward those goals to the detriment of the 99%... But do not see this with government authority.

Neither contain ideologically consistency. If they did, they'd either be cool with both government and corporate power or opposed to both. It seems to me generally an arbitrary and unreasonable distinction that both sides make.

right on. everyone should come to the middle and recognize all authority whether public, private, the state, the corporation and all forms of in between are subject to human failability which includes ineffectiveness, greed, wasted resources, exclusionary, and other impacts to society as a whole.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 7:55:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's an interesting distinction but what you've done is criticise the only real candidates for the allocation of resources: markets and central planning. What remains if you take both of them away?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 10:52:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 7:55:36 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It's an interesting distinction but what you've done is criticise the only real candidates for the allocation of resources: markets and central planning. What remains if you take both of them away?

Central planning, yes. Markets, not necessarily. I think markets are necessary. It's just that some right libertarians are completely blind to any sort of flaw there might be in market practices. It's not like I don't think instances of market authoritarianism can't be rectified. Ignoring them like they don't exist though isn't one of those ways.
: 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.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 1:29:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 6:52:16 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:20:56 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:35:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:30:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/29/2012 10:24:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I doubt anybody actually thinks the market is supposed to work out for everyone. Some people are supposed to die.

Wut.

That's how capitalism works. Some people are supposed to be unemployed. Some people who cannot work are supposed to die; we shouldn't help them.

There are voluntary mechanisms to remedy those problems. Some people love helping others and set up charities, soup kitchens, mental clinics, outreaches, etc.
Charities eat up all the money they're supposed to help people with, and many of those other endeavors are funded by the government.
Companies, private contributors, and other organizations work to provide extra funding to these institutions.
Tax breaks and many are funded by the government.
Even homeless people who are too violent, crazy, or addicted are given food, water, money, clothes, blankets, etc from passer-bys.
I live in NYC; I see people getting 0 help all the time.
If you're trying to imply that we need a government to help these people, it simply can't be made morally or logically.
I never said that we need a government. I believe in a community working together to ensure that everyone can live a happy life. I simply said that it doesn't work under capitalism.
Extorting money from some people to pay for the act annuls any moral benefit from the situation; private charities are, on average, 233% more efficient in aiding people in need.
That's is malarkey. Private charities consume massive amounts of funds for the directors' Ferraris and private charities receive funds from the government anyways.
The last point I'll mention is that, on capitalism, unemployment is low,
Zimbabwe has such a high unemployment rate
real wages rise much faster,
Until you pay people with cans of soup and give them nonsensical loans.
and more stuff is produced; therefore, fewer people are in need

Actually, if you want to prove any of this true, you have to look at the societies we stole and killed form in order to maintain capitalism. We demolished Africa to have capitalism here today. Resources have to come from somewhere since they are finite, and we and the Europeans stole a ton from Africa, killed a massive portion of the population, depopulated it through slavery, seized control of their natural resources through violence (so much for capitalist respect for property rights), use those resources today even though they should belong to Africans, use slave labor, etc.
and the people who remain in need have their essential needs met much more readily, because the average person has more income and property that can be given to charitable causes.

Maybe in our society but not in the societies we stole the resources from. Of course, they don't matter to you. As long as you have an iPhone, who cares if 200 Africans died in the process of making it?

Did you seriously just try to use Zimbabwe as evidence against capitalism?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 3:26:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 10:24:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I doubt anybody actually thinks the market is supposed to work out for everyone. Some people are supposed to die.

Yes, die and obligingly decrease the surplus population. Yep, that eminent social-Darwinian capitalist, Ebenezer Scrooge, is certainly the quintessential right-libertarian. Mm-hmm, perhaps if the libertarians ever manage to take over they'll replace the Uncle Sam character with that miserly cutie, ole Scrooge McDuck as our national cartoon mascot. After all, to a libertarian's mentality the name "Uncle Sam" must suggest an invidious avuncular state that seeks to smother us with mock benevolence. Gotta love those dear libertarians.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 3:35:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 1:29:00 PM, 1Percenter wrote:

That's how capitalism works...

Hmm, "1Percenter", an interesting and perhaps Freudianly telling choice of screen names for a conservative. Do you perhaps recognize that the mentality, and politics, to the exceedingly limited extent that they grasp the concept of politics, of motorcycle gang members is usually quite right-wing, quite along the lines of your own thinking? Yes, how lovely for you and your fellow conservatives to have the stellar likes of the Hells Angels and Mongols in your camp.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 7:10:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 7:17:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
If I lived in an AnCap world, I would never care about helping other people. My very survival would depend on being better than as many people as possible.

Your very survival is always dependent on being better than as many people as possible to some extent. That's true even if just by the status of the family, community, and/or country you're born into. Unfortunately, social darwinism is a description, which to some extent applies to all human societies I think, not necessarily a prescription. I think you just don't like the cold hard reality of humans competing for limited resources, jobs, etc, which will probably always be a fact of human nature. You could argue some forms of socialism/communism are perfect and ideal -- the only problem is, humans are not perfect and ideal. Establishing and defending property and having clearly marked "territory" for you and your family or tribe has always been so natural. Competition is a harsh fact, and any utopian prescription which tries to totally do away with it isn't consistent enough with human nature.

That being said, I'm not an ancap; anarcho capitalism tends to suggest that the free market can just magically solve everything and they tend to be blind to ANY potential problems in the market. Still, to suggest that in such a system people just wouldn't care about helping others.... That's absurd. There is a certain near universal human nature. Most people empathize with others to varying degrees, particularly other peoples' suffering (if they're exposed to it). I'm not sure any system or ideology could successfully do away with this.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 7:27:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 10:06:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Libertarians/anarchists define themselves by their anti-authoritarianism and hence anti-statism. They don't want some overarching authoritarian institution controlling people's lives. It just so happens that the most obvious instance of this is the State (at least in the eyes of right wing libertarians). But it seems inconsistent to put so much energy into arguing against one authoritarian institution while seemingly ignoring others ex. hierarchical/authoritarian corporate structures, instances of market-supported racism, sexism, and other de facto instances of authoritarianism.

Well, all the Libertarians and Anarchists I know are in fact against market perpetuated racism and discrimination, it's just that we don't believe in using force or aggression to stop it. We oppose the State in a more stricter fashion because it violates the NAP and therefore since it's justified to go so far as to use lethal force to defend yourself from the state, it's a more severe form of authoritarianism than simply being discriminated against by private individuals and companies who implement racist and sexist policies and business practices.

It irks me when I see libertarians who don't seem to actually talk about solutions to social problems, but focus more on the reasons government is fvcking things up. I don't like Obamacare/welfare/etc. but I like the idea of simply removing it assuming the market will just work everything out even less.

Well, we don't believe that leaving the market to its own devices will solve for everything. We're not Utopians. We acknowledge that many will still be poor and go hungry. We just believe that without a government, people will by and large will be better off. Governments are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people just in the past 100 or so years, why do we need to come up with a system were virtually nobody dies or gets hurt unnecessarily?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.