Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Libertarian: Yay or Nay?

IrishWolverine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 10:49:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is my first post, so here goes!

Do any of you consider yourselves legit libertarians? If so, then why? What are the pros to the libertarian philosophy, and can they work in our country today? If you're not, and are opposed to libertarian ideals, then why? I find that many people who don't agree with them don't just disagree with them, they flat out HATE them. Even people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives tend to act like libertarianism is God's batsh*t plague on mankind that will destroy the country. Care to explain why? I'm not a libertarian myself, per se, but I do like a lot of their ideas. Perhaps someone will be able to enlighten me. Thanks!
"I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do best isn't very nice. " ///

"You either die a hero...or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 11:38:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 10:49:33 PM, IrishWolverine wrote:
This is my first post, so here goes!

Do any of you consider yourselves legit libertarians? If so, then why? What are the pros to the libertarian philosophy, and can they work in our country today? If you're not, and are opposed to libertarian ideals, then why? I find that many people who don't agree with them don't just disagree with them, they flat out HATE them. Even people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives tend to act like libertarianism is God's batsh*t plague on mankind that will destroy the country. Care to explain why? I'm not a libertarian myself, per se, but I do like a lot of their ideas. Perhaps someone will be able to enlighten me. Thanks!

To answer your first question, I consider myself a 'legit' libertarian communist. Which is itself a 'libertarian' movement.

However, I am assuming you're referring to right-wing 'libertarianism'. In that case, no I don't think it would work. Their economic idea of laissez-faire capitalism has been tried before, one specific example being the Gilded Age in America. However, the booms that occurred under this policy only occurred on the backs of thousands, if not millions, of poverty-stricken workers. They also refuse to acknowledge the struggle of these workers, saying that "if they tried hard enough, they wouldn't be poor" (which is probably the silliest thing i've ever heard).

If anything, their economic policy would spawn massive income inequality. The rich would become richer, and the poor would become poorer.

While their economic ideas are silly (in my opinion), they are (for the most part) tolerable in regards to social policy. However, they still don't live up to the meaning of the word 'libertarian'.

I also don't agree with their idea of minarchy.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 3:07:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 10:49:33 PM, IrishWolverine wrote:
This is my first post, so here goes!

Do any of you consider yourselves legit libertarians? If so, then why? What are the pros to the libertarian philosophy, and can they work in our country today? If you're not, and are opposed to libertarian ideals, then why? I find that many people who don't agree with them don't just disagree with them, they flat out HATE them. Even people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives tend to act like libertarianism is God's batsh*t plague on mankind that will destroy the country. Care to explain why? I'm not a libertarian myself, per se, but I do like a lot of their ideas. Perhaps someone will be able to enlighten me. Thanks!

I would fall under the camp that does not like libertarians. My main reason is that, at least in the more vocal portions, it shows outward disdain for anything conflicting with the ideology. In many cases, this includes blanket opposition to all regulations without even considering potential merits, which can have ruinous results. This also leads to some attempting to deny reliably demonstrated phenomena such as global warming, and I can only assume that this is because it would be rather inconvenient for libertarian ideology to have a problem that short-sighted individuals performing voluntary exchanges most likely wouldn't be able to solve. There is also the nonsensical multiplicity, such as advocating for giving ID equal credence in science classes even when it openly violates several ground rules of science. Not all views are of equal merit. I am also a bit concerned about the common association with conspiracy theorism, since it reflects poorly on the attitude of libertarians.

In short, my problem is more with the attitude that is perceived of the more vocal libertarians. If these vocal ones were a bit more receptive to the possibility that they are not the infallible beings that they pretend to be, then I might get along better with them. But as long as it looks like they are simply ignoring everything that inconveniences their views...
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 3:31:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 3:07:45 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:49:33 PM, IrishWolverine wrote:
This is my first post, so here goes!

Do any of you consider yourselves legit libertarians? If so, then why? What are the pros to the libertarian philosophy, and can they work in our country today? If you're not, and are opposed to libertarian ideals, then why? I find that many people who don't agree with them don't just disagree with them, they flat out HATE them. Even people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives tend to act like libertarianism is God's batsh*t plague on mankind that will destroy the country. Care to explain why? I'm not a libertarian myself, per se, but I do like a lot of their ideas. Perhaps someone will be able to enlighten me. Thanks!

I would fall under the camp that does not like libertarians. My main reason is that, at least in the more vocal portions, it shows outward disdain for anything conflicting with the ideology. In many cases, this includes blanket opposition to all regulations without even considering potential merits, which can have ruinous results. This also leads to some attempting to deny reliably demonstrated phenomena such as global warming, and I can only assume that this is because it would be rather inconvenient for libertarian ideology to have a problem that short-sighted individuals performing voluntary exchanges most likely wouldn't be able to solve. There is also the nonsensical multiplicity, such as advocating for giving ID equal credence in science classes even when it openly violates several ground rules of science. Not all views are of equal merit. I am also a bit concerned about the common association with conspiracy theorism, since it reflects poorly on the attitude of libertarians.

In short, my problem is more with the attitude that is perceived of the more vocal libertarians. If these vocal ones were a bit more receptive to the possibility that they are not the infallible beings that they pretend to be, then I might get along better with them. But as long as it looks like they are simply ignoring everything that inconveniences their views...

There is libertarian policy, that targets environmental concerns. It would in essence treat damage to the environment as theft and punish it accordingly. I'll go more in depth in a future debate on this topic.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 3:43:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 10:49:33 PM, IrishWolverine wrote:
This is my first post, so here goes!

Do any of you consider yourselves legit libertarians?

I do. Also chimera doesn't really represent the libertarian philosophy to well. I think he's more of a socialist anarchist type.

If so, then why?

That's not easy to answer. A lot of things play a factor. It mostly centers around my view on what the role of government should be. I view government as a necessary evil.

What are the pros to the libertarian philosophy, and can they work in our country today?

I won't go into this too much, because I'm about to hit the sack. I personally think libertarian policy shouldn't be applied across the board even if they assumed control of most political offices. I think the focus should be on applying libertarian policies in a way that doesn't have too many transition impacts. Changing things fast and overnight would cause a lot of damage, both to the country and to trust in libertarian policy.

If you're not, and are opposed to libertarian ideals, then why? I find that many people who don't agree with them don't just disagree with them, they flat out HATE them.

Republicans are like that. They hate libertarians because most of them are pro drugs anti military and pro several social freedoms they oppose. I believe Democrats dislike them because they oppose subsidies to the poor and because democrats view their economic policies as particularly dangerous.

Even people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives tend to act like libertarianism is God's batsh*t plague on mankind that will destroy the country. Care to explain why? I'm not a libertarian myself, per se, but I do like a lot of their ideas. Perhaps someone will be able to enlighten me. Thanks!
WheezySquash8
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 5:07:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 10:49:33 PM, IrishWolverine wrote:
This is my first post, so here goes!

Do any of you consider yourselves legit libertarians? If so, then why? What are the pros to the libertarian philosophy, and can they work in our country today? If you're not, and are opposed to libertarian ideals, then why? I find that many people who don't agree with them don't just disagree with them, they flat out HATE them. Even people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives tend to act like libertarianism is God's batsh*t plague on mankind that will destroy the country. Care to explain why? I'm not a libertarian myself, per se, but I do like a lot of their ideas. Perhaps someone will be able to enlighten me. Thanks!

I like Libertarianism even though I am beginning to lean more towards other parties like Liberal and Green.
Pacifist Since 3/12/14
Wheezy
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 1:58:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 11:38:34 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 6/5/2014 10:49:33 PM, IrishWolverine wrote:
This is my first post, so here goes!

Do any of you consider yourselves legit libertarians? If so, then why? What are the pros to the libertarian philosophy, and can they work in our country today? If you're not, and are opposed to libertarian ideals, then why? I find that many people who don't agree with them don't just disagree with them, they flat out HATE them. Even people who consider themselves hardcore conservatives tend to act like libertarianism is God's batsh*t plague on mankind that will destroy the country. Care to explain why? I'm not a libertarian myself, per se, but I do like a lot of their ideas. Perhaps someone will be able to enlighten me. Thanks!

To answer your first question, I consider myself a 'legit' libertarian communist. Which is itself a 'libertarian' movement.

However, I am assuming you're referring to right-wing 'libertarianism'. In that case, no I don't think it would work. Their economic idea of laissez-faire capitalism has been tried before, one specific example being the Gilded Age in America.

I've never thought the Gilded Age to be a great example of what laissez-faire has the potential to be. During the Gilded Age, we had insane tariffs and protectionist economic policies, reducing competition, and additionally, the access to information was pretty low. If there were two places that sold the same good, one place sold the good for a cheaper price, but that place was located 10 miles away from the average consumer's residence, they likely wouldn't know about that place or be able to get to it. With improvements in transportation and information technology, that problem has largely been reduced. Basic google searches let you know about competition, and cars are widespread.

A better example of a free market would be the internet, where people generally have equal access to goods and information.

If anything, their economic policy would spawn massive income inequality.

If anything, government interference into libertarian economic policy is what has caused the severity of the inequities. The federal reserve, for example, subsidizes and backs the stock market. Who are the people who participate in the stock market? Those who already have some degree of wealth, which means that the government is essentially subsidizing the wealthy. There is significant overregulation, and in general, regulations add fixed costs to business, which increases the barrier to entry in the market, thus reducing competition and allowing those who are already established to create market monopolies and oligopolies, thus adding to the inequality. There is the ability to lobby politicians for political favors to your business, giving an unfair advantage, thus creating inequality.

The rich would become richer, and the poor would become poorer.

Even if I accepted the premise that libertarian market policies create inequality (which I don't), that's simply not true. The poor might become poorer relatively, but they will generally become richer absolutely. In America, people in poverty aren't as poor as people in poverty were 100 years ago. In Hong Kong, their poverty is closer to what America's poverty is like, as opposed to 70 years ago, when poverty was much more significant in value.

All this being said (this is not intended to be a hostile question, I seriously want to hear your perspective on this), how is it even possible to consider yourself libertarian and oppose the general right leaning economic policy, when it's basically defined as voluntary interactions? Under communism, you would either need to utilize force to redistribute wealth, making it diametrically opposed to libertarian values, or people would voluntarily choose to redistribute their wealth, making it systematically no different from the the right-wing libertarian economic policy, where people can voluntarily donate.
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
IrishWolverine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 10:40:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
However, I am assuming you're referring to right-wing 'libertarianism'. In that case, no I don't think it would work. Their economic idea of laissez-faire capitalism has been tried before, one specific example being the Gilded Age in America. However, the booms that occurred under this policy only occurred on the backs of thousands, if not millions, of poverty-stricken workers. They also refuse to acknowledge the struggle of these workers, saying that "if they tried hard enough, they wouldn't be poor" (which is probably the silliest thing i've ever heard).

If anything, their economic policy would spawn massive income inequality. The rich would become richer, and the poor would become poorer.

While their economic ideas are silly (in my opinion), they are (for the most part) tolerable in regards to social policy. However, they still don't live up to the meaning of the word 'libertarian'.

I also don't agree with their idea of minarchy.

Correct, I was referring to the "right wingers," some of which are more radical than others. I take it though, that you are opposed to the free market in general, on the basis that it leads to the enslavement of the working class, whether they realize that they are "slaves" or not. However, I contend that life is inherently unequal in all aspects, especially economics. Trying to guarantee that one man will make as much as all others has also been tried before, several times, by communist regimes no less. I agree that "try harder to not be poor" is flimsy, but the truth is, there will always be poor people. The free market at least gives every man a chance. Attempting to rectify inequality by taking the advantage from private businesses and giving it to a central governing power seems rather counterproductive. I like the idea of minarchy, in that the government facilitates the fair play between people. I AM opposed to buying favors from the government to give your enterprise the advantage however. Perhaps this disgusts you as well?
"I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do best isn't very nice. " ///

"You either die a hero...or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
IrishWolverine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 10:48:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 3:07:45 AM, drhead wrote:
I would fall under the camp that does not like libertarians. My main reason is that, at least in the more vocal portions, it shows outward disdain for anything conflicting with the ideology. In many cases, this includes blanket opposition to all regulations without even considering potential merits, which can have ruinous results. This also leads to some attempting to deny reliably demonstrated phenomena such as global warming, and I can only assume that this is because it would be rather inconvenient for libertarian ideology to have a problem that short-sighted individuals performing voluntary exchanges most likely wouldn't be able to solve. There is also the nonsensical multiplicity, such as advocating for giving ID equal credence in science classes even when it openly violates several ground rules of science. Not all views are of equal merit. I am also a bit concerned about the common association with conspiracy theorism, since it reflects poorly on the attitude of libertarians.

In short, my problem is more with the attitude that is perceived of the more vocal libertarians. If these vocal ones were a bit more receptive to the possibility that they are not the infallible beings that they pretend to be, then I might get along better with them. But as long as it looks like they are simply ignoring everything that inconveniences their views...

I agree, some libertarians turn me off with their "in your face-ness", although I can find that in any camp of thought. Liberals can be just as intolerant of, say, business people, and conservatives can openly despise anyone who doesn't like guns. I think the libertarian camp has picked up steam and grown louder due to the recent discontent with the federal government that is only seems to becoming more popular.
"I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do best isn't very nice. " ///

"You either die a hero...or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:11:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 1:58:49 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I've never thought the Gilded Age to be a great example of what laissez-faire has the potential to be. During the Gilded Age, we had insane tariffs and protectionist economic policies, reducing competition, and additionally, the access to information was pretty low. If there were two places that sold the same good, one place sold the good for a cheaper price, but that place was located 10 miles away from the average consumer's residence, they likely wouldn't know about that place or be able to get to it. With improvements in transportation and information technology, that problem has largely been reduced. Basic google searches let you know about competition, and cars are widespread.

If anything, most of those regulations you are talking about were only seriously enacted during the Progressive Era, which was the later half of the Gilded Age. The tariffs were only seriously considered by the Progressives and their supporters, who really never attained prominent status until the late 1890's to early 1900's.


If anything, government interference into libertarian economic policy is what has caused the severity of the inequities. The federal reserve, for example, subsidizes and backs the stock market. Who are the people who participate in the stock market? Those who already have some degree of wealth, which means that the government is essentially subsidizing the wealthy. There is significant overregulation, and in general, regulations add fixed costs to business, which increases the barrier to entry in the market, thus reducing competition and allowing those who are already established to create market monopolies and oligopolies, thus adding to the inequality. There is the ability to lobby politicians for political favors to your business, giving an unfair advantage, thus creating inequality.

The problem is, that inequality is inherent within capitalism.

Let us suppose that you're right, and big business and monopolies survive off of the state. How are you going to stop these businesses from bribing politicians into reinstating these laws that benefits both them and the state? How are you going to stop them from destroying your progress towards a laissez-faire system?

The problem with laissez-faire is that there is nothing to stop corruption. Monopolies would form and take control of the legislature through bribery (which is, frighteningly, legal in the U.S.) and pass laws that benefit themselves. America would become nothing more than a plutocracy.

As long as there is class, there is a division of power amongst the populace. With the rich holding most of the power, and the poor having whatever they kick down to them. Capitalism is, in my opinion, anti-libertarian.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not for regulation in corporations, I simply don't want corporations.

Even if I accepted the premise that libertarian market policies create inequality (which I don't), that's simply not true. The poor might become poorer relatively, but they will generally become richer absolutely. In America, people in poverty aren't as poor as people in poverty were 100 years ago. In Hong Kong, their poverty is closer to what America's poverty is like, as opposed to 70 years ago, when poverty was much more significant in value.

Yes, people in poverty are not as poor as they were 100 years ago (in America). I can agree with you on that, however, that wasn't the result of right-wing libertarian policies. That's the result of the state legitimizing itself for the poor here in America.

However, if anything, people in poverty around the world, especially in the third-world, are still drastically poor. Mainly because western corporations outsource labor from these places. Since they can't acquire it in America anymore. Just because people in poverty aren't as poor in America doesn't mean that people in poverty in the world aren't poor.

In fact, if anything, the truly oppressed members of the proletariat in today's society are sweatshop workers. Who work and produce practically all of the goods for our society and are paid pennies for their hard labor. All while the capitalist obscenely profits off of their practical enslavement.

All this being said (this is not intended to be a hostile question, I seriously want to hear your perspective on this), how is it even possible to consider yourself libertarian and oppose the general right leaning economic policy, when it's basically defined as voluntary interactions? Under communism, you would either need to utilize force to redistribute wealth, making it diametrically opposed to libertarian values, or people would voluntarily choose to redistribute their wealth, making it systematically no different from the the right-wing libertarian economic policy, where people can voluntarily donate.

Well, to begin, communism is not opposed to voluntary interactions. Communism, basically, is the belief in creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society. In other words, a society without authority and/or hierarchy.

There is no redistribution of wealth in a communist society, redistribution is a socialist idea, not a communist one. Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, etc. weren't wannabe Robin Hoods.

Libertarianism is the antithesis to authority and hierarchy, which moves into why I believe minarchy is anti-libertarian. If anything, anarchism is the only political system that can support a libertarian philosophy (that being a philosophy opposed to authority and hierarchy).

Libertarian communism (or anarcho-communism) is the only system that minimizes authority, and maximizes the liberties of the populace. Which is why I personally believe it's the most 'libertarian' movement out there.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 10:08:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 10:40:24 PM, IrishWolverine wrote:

Correct, I was referring to the "right wingers," some of which are more radical than others. I take it though, that you are opposed to the free market in general, on the basis that it leads to the enslavement of the working class, whether they realize that they are "slaves" or not. However, I contend that life is inherently unequal in all aspects, especially economics.

Economics are only unequal since they have stayed so since the invention of agriculture. We enslaved other human beings in order to feed society. Then when we had a surplus, we began to trade these resources for currency. However, before that, we lived in a system of primitive communism. Which really is the system humanity has lived under for most of it's lifetime as a species.

But again, the only reason economics are unequal is because the rich have everything to gain from keeping it so. By telling us that capitalism is the only system that works, they trick us into keeping our current system. People can be equal, in fact it would benefit all of society if it were so. Instead of just the elite like our current society.

Trying to guarantee that one man will make as much as all others has also been tried before, several times, by communist regimes no less. I agree that "try harder to not be poor" is flimsy, but the truth is, there will always be poor people.

Communism is not centered around the idea that one man makes as much as another. It is based around the idea that people shouldn't have to be paid in the first place. In communism, all blue-collar jobs would probably be handled by machines, since we shouldn't have to waste a humans life and knowledge by having them work in a factory.

Also, there is no such thing as a communist regime. The concept of the state is inherently anti-communist. Communism is the belief in a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Therefore dictatorships like the USSR and the DPRK are not communist. If anything, they are centrally planned socialist countries that border on fascism.

Also, poor people will only exist as long as we live in a system that keeps them poor. In communism, there is no poor or rich. There are only living, breathing human beings. All of whom have equal access to the products of society.

The free market at least gives every man a chance. Attempting to rectify inequality by taking the advantage from private businesses and giving it to a central governing power seems rather counterproductive.

The free market doesn't give every man a chance, it gives those with more wealth more power to influence the state to their benefit. In the free market, the world is a corporations playground.

When we last embraced laissez-faire, we had corporations selling rotten decayed meat since it was cheaper to obtain. We had cocaine in Coke-Cola, children in coal mines, and entire families living in decrepit hovels and tenements. We also had 99% of the wealth in 1% of the population.

You can hardly call that a fair chance.

I like the idea of minarchy, in that the government facilitates the fair play between people. I AM opposed to buying favors from the government to give your enterprise the advantage however. Perhaps this disgusts you as well?

Not only does bribery and corporate-government intermingling disgust, it is the problem that is inherent in laissez-faire. What will you do to stop corporations from getting in bed with the state and earning concessions and bailouts? What are you going to do to stop the creation of a puppet republic that is controlled completely by the wealthy elite?

If you attempt to regulate these corporations from doing such, then it is anti-free market. But if you allow it to happen, you are enabling plutocracy. This is the main reason why I left the right-wing libertarian movement, there is nothing to stop corruption.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 10:48:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When we last embraced laissez-faire,
That never actually occurred. The Gilded age, as today, was an age of cronyism, not of a libertarian legal system. And yet, as today, it had some surface similarities to libertarianism-- and it was the era in which human quality of life progressed at its very fastest in history to that point. One remembers the bad parts of the Gilded Age, real and fictional, not because they were particular to that time and place, but because that was a period of some of the earliest observations to confirm the Enlightenment's prediction that matters could and would improve, and therefore the earliest that many could sincerely complain that progress was slower than their expectations (give them an inch and they'll hope for a mile, as it were).. As people began to believe they would improve, they tried to enact regulations to speed it along-- and despite the fact that those regulations were counterproductive, progress had already been set in motion, and those regulations could not actually stop it, despite the stutters like the Depression of 1921 and the Great Depression (which occurred after the 1900-1920 rapid growth in regulations known as the Progressive era).

we had corporations selling rotten decayed meat since it was cheaper to obtain
You realize The Jungle was fiction, right?

We had cocaine in Coke-Cola
You know there's no evidence the dose ever harmed anyone right? Prohibitionist panic mongering ended that, not science.

children in coal mines
Which occurred only because coal mines were a new thing, not because child labor was.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 11:04:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I should note that there was indeed an increase in industrial child labor during the Gilded Age-- not because it was suddenly legal though, nor because industrial conditions demanded it-- it increased because there were stupid regulations (local minimum wage laws) that acted to encourage child labor, and discourage the employment of adult males. This was not their intended purpose of course, but you cannot blame capitalism for an Active Stupid government. Anyone who is actually stupid enough to believe that a free market would or could in and of itself encourage the employment of the average child in an occupation like coal mining has no idea how coal is mined.

and entire families living in decrepit hovels and tenements.
A condition that existed since the dawn of time-- brought up at that time as noteworthy because at that time there began to be a significant portion of families for whom it was not true, instead of most of human history where this was the undisputed norm for anyone not a noble.

We also had 99% of the wealth in 1% of the population.

Do you have an actual source for this statistic? I will not deny that there was an increased stratification of wealth (achieved by an uneven increase in production, not by distribution away from someone), but that sounds a little off.

You can hardly call that a fair chance
I sure can, especially as opposed to the history of those societies even less capitalist than the cronyist United States.

Not only does bribery and corporate-government intermingling disgust, it is the problem that is inherent in laissez-faire.
If by inherent you mean inherently incompatible with. The phenomenon you observe is a phenomenon that is a survival strategy of businesses who are threatened by government. A business in a laissez faire market has little to gain from attention to the government. As regulations go up, so does the importance of controlling a government for a business's operations.

What are you going to do to stop the creation of a puppet republic that is controlled completely by the wealthy elite?
Remove the reward from the game. Make the government something the wealthy elite regard as a mere security measure against looters, not something that can be of thick and numerous use to them.

there is nothing to stop corruption.
Every step away from the free market is a step that encourages corruption.
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.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 12:41:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 10:49:33 PM, IrishWolverine wrote:
This is my first post, so here goes!

Do any of you consider yourselves legit libertarians? If so, then why?

I don't consider myself libertarian but my ideological stands on libertarian principles. I believe individual freedom is very important, but not at the expense of the over all well being of society (for example I wouldn't get an individual the freedom to murder someone because legalizing murder isn't healthy for society).

What are the pros to the libertarian philosophy, and can they work in our country today?

Depends on how libertarian the philosophy is. I believe any principle can work, but not every one can work well. The US could legalize all drugs, but I don't believe that would be very beneficial to society.

If you're not, and are opposed to libertarian ideals, then why?

Libertarian freedom is overrated, particularly among libertarians. However, it is also very underrated among socialists, ect.

It is important to hit that magic spot where individuals still have a lot of freedom, but not at the expense of a healthy society.

I find that many people who don't agree with them don't just disagree with them, they flat out HATE them.

I respect libertarians, but I think they take it too far.
Nolite Timere
IrishWolverine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:00:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 10:08:50 PM, Chimera wrote:
Economics are only unequal since they have stayed so since the invention of agriculture. We enslaved other human beings in order to feed society. Then when we had a surplus, we began to trade these resources for currency. However, before that, we lived in a system of primitive communism. Which really is the system humanity has lived under for most of it's lifetime as a species.

So agriculture is responsible for inequality? Even if that were so, there isn't really any argument for getting rid of an agricultural society, we rather do depend on it. I'm sure you're not advocating for that.

But again, the only reason economics are unequal is because the rich have everything to gain from keeping it so. By telling us that capitalism is the only system that works, they trick us into keeping our current system. People can be equal, in fact it would benefit all of society if it were so. Instead of just the elite like our current society.

The claim that "the rich have everything" is rhetoric. I think you are confusing the corrupt with the rich. Being rich does not mean the person is corrupt. There are plenty of legitimate, honest businessmen who have made their fortunes by working hard, playing by the rules and probably getting a little bit lucky. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater does not solve the problem. Equality, quite frankly, is a fantasy. All men may be created special, but that doesn't mean we're all destined for the same status. Even if we were back in primitive communism times, there would still be those who are better at hunting, better at fighting, better at fishing, etc. No system can ever change that.

Communism is not centered around the idea that one man makes as much as another. It is based around the idea that people shouldn't have to be paid in the first place. In communism, all blue-collar jobs would probably be handled by machines, since we shouldn't have to waste a humans life and knowledge by having them work in a factory.

So we don't get paid...and then what? We all just owe each other what we need? Trying to say "We'll all just be equal and not have conflicts of interest" is nice but doomed to failure. And how exactly do we develop these magic machines that handle all blue collar work?

Also, there is no such thing as a communist regime. The concept of the state is inherently anti-communist. Communism is the belief in a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Therefore dictatorships like the USSR and the DPRK are not communist. If anything, they are centrally planned socialist countries that border on fascism.
Also, poor people will only exist as long as we live in a system that keeps them poor. In communism, there is no poor or rich. There are only living, breathing human beings. All of whom have equal access to the products of society.


OK, fair enough, they weren't "true" communists. How exactly do you propose to keep people safe and equal without a structure or state? Who enforces this equality? Who sees to it that we all get what we need, rather than having to work for the money to pay for it? How do we all have access to these "products" if there's nobody harvesting/managing/inventing in them? I would like all people to be living, human beings, but one of our defining characteristics is the desire to get on top. That's something that no ideology will ever change. Humans need an enforceable moral social code to live by. Otherwise it's just warring tribes, all the time.

The free market doesn't give every man a chance, it gives those with more wealth more power to influence the state to their benefit. In the free market, the world is a corporations playground.


When we last embraced laissez-faire, we had corporations selling rotten decayed meat since it was cheaper to obtain. We had cocaine in Coke-Cola, children in coal mines, and entire families living in decrepit hovels and tenements. We also had 99% of the wealth in 1% of the population.


Again, that is crony capitalism, it's not a true representation of the free market. The free market only exists without government intervention which gives particular corporations the advantage. The government should exist to PREVENT favoritism, not be the perpetrator of it. In a free market, and especially in today's networked world, it's easy to determine who is selling rotten meat, and such corporations would quickly go out of business. It's much easier to get crappy products onto shelves when the gov gives them the A-OK(which happens way too often).


Not only does bribery and corporate-government intermingling disgust, it is the problem that is inherent in laissez-faire. What will you do to stop corporations from getting in bed with the state and earning concessions and bailouts? What are you going to do to stop the creation of a puppet republic that is controlled completely by the wealthy elite?

You tear it down and kick them out. You refuse to vote for the sellouts, the ones who play favorites in exchange for funding, who look the other way because they have a personal agenda. I think the main difference here is that you believe we can achieve perfect equality, while I am certain that there is no such thing. So I can not advocate for a so called "perfect" society, I can only advocate for "the best possible/least messed up" one. Capitalism will never be perfect, but it will be the least messed up one.

If you attempt to regulate these corporations from doing such, then it is anti-free market. But if you allow it to happen, you are enabling plutocracy. This is the main reason why I left the right-wing libertarian movement, there is nothing to stop corruption. :

You are right, there is nothing to stop corruption, there is only vigilance and morality. If good men wish to help each other, then an ideal society can exist; otherwise, nothing can safeguard against corruption. It seems to be the natural order of things for good intentions to eventually become tainted, which is why I don't hold my breath for a coming utopia, I only support what gives us the best fighting chance.
"I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do best isn't very nice. " ///

"You either die a hero...or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:52:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's a rare breed of leftist who admits they truly advocate the return of the primitive.
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.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 2:16:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Nay
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 7:08:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 10:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's a rare breed of leftist who admits they truly advocate the return of the primitive.

I don't. I was just making an observation.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 9:15:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 7:08:00 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's a rare breed of leftist who admits they truly advocate the return of the primitive.

I don't. I was just making an observation.

The observation being... that the thing you advocate best approximated actual events when life was nasty, brutish, and short.
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.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 10:21:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 9:15:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/13/2014 7:08:00 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's a rare breed of leftist who admits they truly advocate the return of the primitive.

I don't. I was just making an observation.

The observation being... that the thing you advocate best approximated actual events when life was nasty, brutsh, and short.

I never said that I advocated for primitivism. All I was doing was responding to the statement that economics is inherently unequal. I then contended the statement by saying that economics has only been unequal with the invention of agriculture, since it created a catalyst for hierarchy and slavery. I didnt say I advocated for moving back into pre-agriculture standards of living.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 5:37:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 10:21:12 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 6/13/2014 9:15:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/13/2014 7:08:00 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's a rare breed of leftist who admits they truly advocate the return of the primitive.

I don't. I was just making an observation.

The observation being... that the thing you advocate best approximated actual events when life was nasty, brutsh, and short.

I never said that I advocated for primitivism. All I was doing was responding to the statement that economics is inherently unequal. I then contended the statement by saying that economics has only been unequal with the invention of agriculture, since it created a catalyst for hierarchy and slavery. I didnt say I advocated for moving back into pre-agriculture standards of living.

You advocate equality, however, no? It can only be found, to the extent it can be found, in those times and places in history where all were poor.
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.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 1:25:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 10:48:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When we last embraced laissez-faire,
That never actually occurred. The Gilded age, as today, was an age of cronyism, not of a libertarian legal system. And yet, as today, it had some surface similarities to libertarianism-- and it was the era in which human quality of life progressed at its very fastest in history to that point. One remembers the bad parts of the Gilded Age, real and fictional, not because they were particular to that time and place, but because that was a period of some of the earliest observations to confirm the Enlightenment's prediction that matters could and would improve, and therefore the earliest that many could sincerely complain that progress was slower than their expectations (give them an inch and they'll hope for a mile, as it were).. As people began to believe they would improve, they tried to enact regulations to speed it along-- and despite the fact that those regulations were counterproductive, progress had already been set in motion, and those regulations could not actually stop it, despite the stutters like the Depression of 1921 and the Great Depression (which occurred after the 1900-1920 rapid growth in regulations known as the Progressive era).

We did pursue laissez-faire. Laissez-faire means 'without interference', which was a very popular economic policy in the Gilded Age, and again in the 1920's. Whether or not it created a 'free market' is a different story.

The human quality of life progressed for the top bracket in America, the working class was living in tenements and slums. The regulations that were enacted were made to legitimize the powerful position held by the state, and lull the working class into a false sense of security. Those regulations were only made so it would seem like politicians were on the side of the proletariat.

Also, the Great Depression occurred after an era of a lack of regulations, known as the Roaring Twenties. The Progressive Era (as well as the post-WWI production boom), if anything, helped stabilize the economy for such.

we had corporations selling rotten decayed meat since it was cheaper to obtain
You realize The Jungle was fiction, right?

It was political fiction that was based on bringing real events and situations to attention. Sure, the characters weren't real, but that doesn't mean it never happened.

children in coal mines
Which occurred only because coal mines were a new thing, not because child labor was.
Child labor was nothing new, correct. However, the massive amounts of poverty stricken children had to flock to factories to work for their families. If child labor had not been decriminalized then children would still be working in unsanitary conditions. Whereas in a laissez-faire society these regulations wouldn't exist since they cut the profits of corporations.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 2:01:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 11:04:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

and entire families living in decrepit hovels and tenements.
A condition that existed since the dawn of time-- brought up at that time as noteworthy because at that time there began to be a significant portion of families for whom it was not true, instead of most of human history where this was the undisputed norm for anyone not a noble.

If anything, this condition was only became prevalent after the Industrial Revolution started in Britain. Before then, most of the population of the Earth lived in rural areas. They didn't live in filthy tenements, however I can agree that they didn't have what the nobility had (in fact many people in the world still don't have the same access to products as the top bracket), I never said anything opposing such.

We also had 99% of the wealth in 1% of the population.

Do you have an actual source for this statistic? I will not deny that there was an increased stratification of wealth (achieved by an uneven increase in production, not by distribution away from someone), but that sounds a little off.

Whether or not it was that exact statistic is up to historians. However, I do know that it was far worse than today, where 20% of our population owns 80% of the wealth.

Not only does bribery and corporate-government intermingling disgust, it is the problem that is inherent in laissez-faire.
If by inherent you mean inherently incompatible with. The phenomenon you observe is a phenomenon that is a survival strategy of businesses who are threatened by government. A business in a laissez faire market has little to gain from attention to the government. As regulations go up, so does the importance of controlling a government for a business's operations.

It isn't a 'survival strategy' it's something that has been inherited by capitalism as a means of the rich controlling the state in order to keep the proletariat from gaining control. I'm also not talking about small businesses, i'm talking about corporate giants that benefit entirely from corruption. These corporations have everything to gain from controlling a government, regardless of the policy present.

What are you going to do to stop the creation of a puppet republic that is controlled completely by the wealthy elite?
Remove the reward from the game. Make the government something the wealthy elite regard as a mere security measure against looters, not something that can be of thick and numerous use to them.

If 'make' the government something else, then in a laissez-faire society the rich would just rig the politico-economic system so they can consolidate their position of power/wealth. You can't make the wealthy elite play nice with the rest of the populace, it is detrimental to their power.

there is nothing to stop corruption.
Every step away from the free market is a step that encourages corruption.

The capitalism itself enables corruption, saying that you wish to make a capitalist free market is like saying you want to make a pair of red shoes that are blue. The only way I see that a 'free market' could ever be formed is through the abolition of hierarchy. Both political and economic. I really wish that market libertarians and 'anarcho-capitalists' would read up on theories like mutualism. Since it also advocates a free market, but sees the danger that hierarchy brings for such a concept.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 2:06:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 5:37:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/13/2014 10:21:12 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 6/13/2014 9:15:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/13/2014 7:08:00 AM, Chimera wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's a rare breed of leftist who admits they truly advocate the return of the primitive.

I don't. I was just making an observation.

The observation being... that the thing you advocate best approximated actual events when life was nasty, brutsh, and short.

I never said that I advocated for primitivism. All I was doing was responding to the statement that economics is inherently unequal. I then contended the statement by saying that economics has only been unequal with the invention of agriculture, since it created a catalyst for hierarchy and slavery. I didnt say I advocated for moving back into pre-agriculture standards of living.

You advocate equality, however, no? It can only be found, to the extent it can be found, in those times and places in history where all were poor.

Do I advocate for equality? Of course, however, equality doesn't come at the price of everyone being poor (let alone having neolithic standards of living). Our society has progressed through technology to the point that we can create a post-scarcity society. We mass produce at rates that go far beyond anything our primitive ancestors dreamed of.

Just because equality was found in those primitive times doesn't mean we should just completely emulate them. Doing so gains no benefits. I was only commenting on the social structure that was prevalent in their society. Not their economics.

So finally, I do not advocate primitivism. I find their social structure interesting and of value (but not the highest value), but nothing more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 3:27:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 1:25:13 PM, Chimera wrote:
We did pursue laissez-faire. Laissez-faire means 'without interference'
And there was craploads of interference. Take the railroads, most of which were built with heavy government subsidies.

which was a very popular economic policy in the Gilded Age, and again in the 1920's.
It occurred in neither, especially the 1920s. The 1920s was not an age of laissez faire, it was an age in which regulations were frozen at Progressive Era levels. I.e., lots and lots and lots of regulations still.

The human quality of life progressed for the top bracket in America, the working class was living in tenements and slums.
Tenements of slums which were improvements over what those classes had before, as the millions which flocked to them could attest.

The regulations that were enacted were made to legitimize the powerful position held by the state, and lull the working class into a false sense of security.
In other words, you confess there was no laissez-faire.

Also, the Great Depression occurred after an era of a lack of regulations, known as the Roaring Twenties.
False, it was only an era of lacking NEW regulations.

The Progressive Era (as well as the post-WWI production boom), if anything, helped stabilize the economy for such.
The only thing it "stabilized" was investment into the most rotten area of the economy. The regulations ensured actually productive investments were by and large illegal.


we had corporations selling rotten decayed meat since it was cheaper to obtain
You realize The Jungle was fiction, right?

It was political fiction that was based on bringing real events and situations to attention. Sure, the characters weren't real, but that doesn't mean it never happened.
It never happened. No real events with different names transpired.


children in coal mines
Which occurred only because coal mines were a new thing, not because child labor was.
Child labor was nothing new, correct. However, the massive amounts of poverty stricken children had to flock to factories to work for their families.
No, the amounts of poverty stricken children were always there. They flocked to factories because minimum wage laws discouraged the hiring of adult males.

If child labor had not been decriminalized then children would still be working in unsanitary conditions.
Read your own sentence there again.

If anything, this condition was only became prevalent after the Industrial Revolution started in Britain.
No, that merely changed rural hovels with no chance of improvement into urban ones with some chance.

Before then, most of the population of the Earth lived in rural areas.
Yes, decrepit rural hovels. As serfs who would never ever ever progress in life.

Whether or not it was that exact statistic is up to historians.
In other words you made it up.

However, I do know that it was far worse than today, where 20% of our population owns 80% of the wealth.
What you do not know is what today would look like without the Progressive Era, the 30s, and so forth.

What we do know is that you've never heard of the Depression of 1920.

It isn't a 'survival strategy' it's something that has been inherited by capitalism as a means of the rich controlling the state in order to keep the proletariat from gaining control.
You haven't actually made an argument, just an assertion.

I'm also not talking about small businesses
I wasn't either.

i'm talking about corporate giants that benefit entirely from corruption.
Corporate giants exist with or without corruption. With more regulation, the ones that survive on corruption go up and the ones that survive on production go down.

These corporations have everything to gain from controlling a government, regardless of the policy present.
If there is not a general policy of regulation, any corruption stands out in an open field, to be burned away by sunlight. It is only amid a widespread regulatory apparatus that a government can dispense anything under the table.

If 'make' the government something else, then in a laissez-faire society the rich would just rig the politico-economic system so they can consolidate their position of power/wealth.
By what magical means?

You can't make the wealthy elite play nice with the rest of the populace, it is detrimental to their power.
They don't have to play nice. You can convince them to think "The public be damned"-- i.e., to not play at all. Make politics a thing that is of no benefit to them, by making it a thing that has no effect on them.

The capitalism itself enables corruption
I've made arguments to the contrary that you haven't actually addressed.

The only way I see that a 'free market' could ever be formed is through the abolition of hierarchy
How are you going to abolish consensual hierarchies and call it free?

would read up on theories like mutualism
There's nothing to it but vague rhetoric. If people are free, they will not act in that manner. If you attempt to force them to, they won't be free.

Do I advocate for equality? Of course, however, equality doesn't come at the price of everyone being poor
That's been the historical case.

Our society has progressed through technology to the point that we can create a post-scarcity society.
hahahhahhahahhahahahhahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahha.

Scarcity is the inherent condition of economics.

And if it weren't, you wouldn't need a government to prove otherwise, just open your magic fount of infinite wealth and no one has anything to fight about.
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.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 4:02:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Libertarian: Yay or Nay? Light years better than progressive liberalism
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%