Total Posts:174|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarian Question

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 5:42:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As I understand it, Libertarians do not like democracy because of the potential tyranny of the majority. In other words, something should not be implemented simply because X number of people think that it should; it makes the minority's views insignificant and therefore it's wrong. However, isn't saying "the market will regulate itself" essentially proposing that same standard?

For instance, suppose I ran a business that polluted very heavily causing detrimental effects on the environment and thus effecting everyone - even future generations. A Libertarian would say "the market will take care of it by choosing not to buy from that business." However, suppose either (a) my business sold cheap goods therefore some people didn't care, or (b) I was really rich and could afford to keep my business open even without a lot of traffic.

Essentially by this method, it's okay to do something wrong so long as you can afford to do so. In other words, it's sort of like a democracy except who gets a vote and how much your vote is worth is solely determined by how much money you have. Those concerned about their health, the planet, etc. (in this example) may be in the minority therefore their position is not considered. Is this assessment correct, and if not, where does my analogy fail?

Ps. By democracy I mean the concept as a whole; I'm not necessarily referring to the U.S. political system as a democratic republic.
President of DDO
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 5:48:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:44:19 PM, Puck wrote:
Pollution is resolved under tort law. Free market =/= open season on pollutants.

...a tort so large as to include everyone on the planet?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
cutebunny43
Posts: 296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 5:48:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
because millions of individual lawsuits that, legal fees, wasted time, and spending your life filing lawsuits is way more efficient then recognizing pollution as a negative externality, taxing it and subsidizing the people who are affected by it.

Keynesian Libertarians, we exist.
Mafia for Beginners Signup Now

http://www.debate.org...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 5:50:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:48:19 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 4/22/2010 5:44:19 PM, Puck wrote:
Pollution is resolved under tort law. Free market =/= open season on pollutants.

...a tort so large as to include everyone on the planet?

Hmm? Class action suits exist, yes. A global class action would presuppose a global scenario where such laws exist and are pertinent in all countries and available to all people.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 5:50:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:42:44 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Essentially by this method, it's okay to do something wrong so long as you can afford to do so.

I think most libertarians would like to see "rights" gauranteed by a state...

so if someone does something "wrong" they should be thrown in jail, or at least fined.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 5:53:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:48:42 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
because millions of individual lawsuits that, legal fees, wasted time, and spending your life filing lawsuits is way more efficient then recognizing pollution as a negative externality, taxing it and subsidizing the people who are affected by it.

Keynesian Libertarians, we exist.

Pay people to be polluted vs. true accountability to those who pollute. Hmm.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 5:54:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:48:42 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
because millions of individual lawsuits that, legal fees, wasted time, and spending your life filing lawsuits is way more efficient then

...That's the point. The companies would realize that pollution is not worth the lawsuits, legal fees, and wasted time.

recognizing pollution as a negative externality, taxing it and subsidizing the people who are affected by it.

Companies would simply find loopholes in these regulations, and they would be immune from tort claims in these regulations. Environmental regulations also end up destroying property rights most of the time. Besides, big business and K Street essentially runs DC, which would inevitably give greater advantages to big business in regulatory laws.

Keynesian Libertarians, we exist.

Never heard of it. Apparently Google hasn't either.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 5:57:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:48:07 PM, mongeese wrote:
Are you polluting the air, or are you polluting your own property, or are you polluting somebody else's property?

I guess the air? Though we can take 'pollution' in general out of the equation.

To clarify, it was a thought I had regarding a different topic actually (campaign finance reform) so I guess this is essentially a question posed to Nags who is a Libertarian that is pro CRF. I understand that Pros on that issue agree one politician should not have a greater say over another simply because he or she was able to raise more money, or had more money to begin with.

But that logic for a Libertarian doesn't follow. Under a Libertarian government, there would be no politicians (essentially) -- consumers would dictate the way things are. In other words, if people continue to fund it, then it demonstrates the people's (market) support. So, the better funding something has, then the more support it has regardless of whether it's right or wrong. I would like to know the difference between this and CRF, again I guess directed mostly at Nags.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 5:57:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:49:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/22/2010 5:46:06 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Remove pollution from the example then...

But pollution was the example...

Ok, so scratch the first 2 paragraphs.
President of DDO
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:04:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:57:05 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 4/22/2010 5:48:07 PM, mongeese wrote:
Are you polluting the air, or are you polluting your own property, or are you polluting somebody else's property?

I guess the air? Though we can take 'pollution' in general out of the equation.

To clarify, it was a thought I had regarding a different topic actually (campaign finance reform) so I guess this is essentially a question posed to Nags who is a Libertarian that is pro CRF. I understand that Pros on that issue agree one politician should not have a greater say over another simply because he or she was able to raise more money, or had more money to begin with.

But that logic for a Libertarian doesn't follow. Under a Libertarian government, there would be no politicians (essentially) -- consumers would dictate the way things are. In other words, if people continue to fund it, then it demonstrates the people's (market) support. So, the better funding something has, then the more support it has regardless of whether it's right or wrong. I would like to know the difference between this and CRF, again I guess directed mostly at Nags.

the reason people are for campaign finance reform is because corporations can attempt to basically buy laws that favor them over other corporations or that somehow increase their profits. under a libertarian system however there would be no laws effecting the course of the economy and thus CRF would become irrelevant. so does the issue of corporations buying a "voice"- because disseminating information is different than legislating an economic advantage.

its not really about being popular so much as being able to legally enforce your whims due to your popularity. and that would be impossible if laws regulating the economy were not made.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:07:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 6:02:49 PM, Nags wrote:
Ehh. I changed my stance on CFR a while ago. I just fixed it on my profile. I'm now Con.

Okay, but can you respond to my question? I'm sincerely interested in the answer lol... look at my original post but eliminate the first 2 paragraphs and example of environmental protection, as I am mostly speaking in general. I am wondering how the market determining policy (i.e. who has more money) is different or better than giving everyone a say (and I use the term "everyone" loosely). If money dictated how things were run, wouldn't that be like an oligarchy?
President of DDO
cutebunny43
Posts: 296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:07:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:53:26 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/22/2010 5:48:42 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
because millions of individual lawsuits that, legal fees, wasted time, and spending your life filing lawsuits is way more efficient then recognizing pollution as a negative externality, taxing it and subsidizing the people who are affected by it.

Keynesian Libertarians, we exist.

Pay people to be polluted vs. true accountability to those who pollute. Hmm.

Lol anyone who knows basic economics knows the true facts Puck. Taxing pollution for the negative effects it creates, give incentives (profit wise) to eliminate pollution and other negative externalities.

What do you think tort lawsuits are? A recompense for pollution
Mafia for Beginners Signup Now

http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:13:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 6:04:56 PM, belle wrote:

the reason people are for campaign finance reform is because corporations can attempt to basically buy laws that favor them over other corporations or that somehow increase their profits. under a libertarian system however there would be no laws effecting the course of the economy and thus CRF would become irrelevant. so does the issue of corporations buying a "voice"- because disseminating information is different than legislating an economic advantage.

its not really about being popular so much as being able to legally enforce your whims due to your popularity. and that would be impossible if laws regulating the economy were not made.

I understand how CRF would cease to exist without laws regulating the economy, but I'm speaking more about how things would be run in general. Suppose there were no laws regulating the economy and no CRF. My question is basically wondering why it's unacceptable for everyone to have an equal say, but acceptable to essentially say that only the rich have a say -- or better yet let money (monetary support) dictate whether or not you have a say, if the way of having a say is through market participation.
President of DDO
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:13:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:48:42 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
Keynesian Libertarians

What The F*ck?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:14:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 6:13:40 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 4/22/2010 5:48:42 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
Keynesian Libertarians

What The F*ck?

Haha you're a Libertarian - Do you have a response to my question?
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:17:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 6:07:17 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I am wondering how the market determining policy (i.e. who has more money) is different or better than giving everyone a say (and I use the term "everyone" loosely).

There is no governmental economic policy in a free market. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If money dictated how things were run, wouldn't that be like an oligarchy?

Kinda like Goldman Sachs in contemporary United States? Eh.

Businesses wouldn't receive anything in the form of subsidies or favorable policy from the government in a free market, because the government wouldn't be allowed to do so.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:23:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ah, let me pose a different scenario to demonstrate my question. Suppose we had a Libertarian government. Michael Vick decided to open up a club where people could go bet on dog fights and watch starving pitbulls fight to the death over a piece of meat. Now say I was against this practice as are a majority of Americans, so myself and the majority of Americans did not attend this club. However, rich celebrities did attend this club thereby providing funding for the business and allowing it to remain open. My question is why the views of myself and the majority should be ignored simply because a few can afford to fund it. Isn't that like putting morality in the hands of the highest bidder? Or philosophical questions of morality aside, it seems to be saying that it's essentially a system like democracy though the value of your 'vote' is determined by your wealth. Is that a fair assessment?
President of DDO
cutebunny43
Posts: 296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:25:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:54:36 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/22/2010 5:48:42 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
because millions of individual lawsuits that, legal fees, wasted time, and spending your life filing lawsuits is way more efficient then

...That's the point. The companies would realize that pollution is not worth the lawsuits, legal fees, and wasted time.

Incorrect. Most companies would have a salaried lawyer under your idiotic ideals because most citizens wouldn't bother with a lawsuit for a 40 dollar payout. Thus it would be profitable to pollute
Mafia for Beginners Signup Now

http://www.debate.org...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:27:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 6:13:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I understand how CRF would cease to exist without laws regulating the economy, but I'm speaking more about how things would be run in general. Suppose there were no laws regulating the economy and no CRF. My question is basically wondering why it's unacceptable for everyone to have an equal say, but acceptable to essentially say that only the rich have a say -- or better yet let money (monetary support) dictate whether or not you have a say, if the way of having a say is through market participation.

i'm not sure what you mean by "having a say". in general just spending money to get their views heard? it goes back to the difference between a law favoring certain people over others as opposed to a state of spontaneous organization. its the difference between being thrown in jail for expressing an unpopular view and simply being ignored. anyone has a right to say what they want, but trying to enforce a right to be heard ends up restricting others freedom of action.

additionally having more of a say doesn't make you right. so while, for example, the tobacco industry may have shittons more money than some anti-smoking group, it *is* a fact that smoking is exceedingly bad for you, and no one can prevent that information from getting out.

while its true that people tend to believe things they hear more often whether they are true or not, this isn't inevitable. there is a still a freedom of evaluation and action that is removed when its a matter of law rather than volume.

if you're talking about having a say as in 1 dollar= 1 vote, i say that you spending your 10 dollars freely doesn't stop me from spending my 1 dollar as i please, except in an extremely indirect way (if i am the only person who likes company X and it doesn't make enough profit and goes under say) whereas in a "tyranny of the majority" situation one group of people stops another group from doing as they please because they find what the second group wishes to do distasteful. theres no acts of force involved in the market, its simply the accumulated result of many individual decisions. on the other hand, a law democratically voted on is binding on everyone and requires coercive actions by individuals to enforce. in a free market, no one is subject to any arbitrary whims that they wouldn't also be subject to in the absence of government with the added bonus of legal protection and the fruits of the division of labor.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:28:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 6:25:26 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
Incorrect. Most companies would have a salaried lawyer under your idiotic ideals because most citizens wouldn't bother with a lawsuit for a 40 dollar payout. Thus it would be profitable to pollute

Do you even know what a class action is?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:30:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ty belle. Can you respond to this part for me?

Ah, let me pose a different scenario to demonstrate my question. Suppose we had a Libertarian government. Michael Vick decided to open up a club where people could go bet on dog fights and watch starving pitbulls fight to the death over a piece of meat. Now say I was against this practice as are a majority of Americans, so myself and the majority of Americans did not attend this club. However, rich celebrities did attend this club thereby providing funding for the business and allowing it to remain open. My question is why the views of myself and the majority should be ignored simply because a few can afford to fund it. Isn't that like putting morality in the hands of the highest bidder? Or philosophical questions of morality aside, it seems to be saying that it's essentially a system like democracy though the value of your 'vote' is determined by your wealth. Is that a fair assessment?
President of DDO
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:31:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 6:07:18 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
At 4/22/2010 5:53:26 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/22/2010 5:48:42 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
because millions of individual lawsuits that, legal fees, wasted time, and spending your life filing lawsuits is way more efficient then recognizing pollution as a negative externality, taxing it and subsidizing the people who are affected by it.

Keynesian Libertarians, we exist.

Pay people to be polluted vs. true accountability to those who pollute. Hmm.

Lol anyone who knows basic economics knows the true facts Puck. Taxing pollution for the negative effects it creates, give incentives (profit wise) to eliminate pollution and other negative externalities.

Not really. Carbon trading schemes are largely unsuccessful, and advocate the same premise, except for a profit motive instead of loss incentive.

What do you think tort lawsuits are? A recompense for pollution

The difference is you are allowing one to continue operation under the pretense of 'there will be compensation' vs. 'this is illegal and such activity will be punished'. One has a greater motivation than the other, recognises the reasoning why it should be disallowed far more effectively than the other.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:32:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 5:42:44 PM, theLwerd wrote:
As I understand it, Libertarians do not like democracy because of the potential tyranny of the majority. In other words, something should not be implemented simply because X number of people think that it should; it makes the minority's views insignificant and therefore it's wrong. However, isn't saying "the market will regulate itself" essentially proposing that same standard?
In a sense, which is why I'm starting to look into the anar-syndicalism or whatever it is that FREEDO has been posting about. But no, not really. Not by a lot, really. What democracy is, is a one-size-fits-all solution. Majority wins. In a free market, whichever products/companies serve the customers the best will gain the highest market share for sure, but it doesn't totally screw over the minority. Rather than a monopoly, there are big businesses and small businesses.

For instance, suppose I ran a business that polluted very heavily causing detrimental effects on the environment and thus effecting everyone - even future generations. A Libertarian would say "the market will take care of it by choosing not to buy from that business." However, suppose either (a) my business sold cheap goods therefore some people didn't care,
I don't get the problem here. Some people are always not going to care. What matters is the people that do care, and they can go ahead and take action about it.
or (b) I was really rich and could afford to keep my business open even without a lot of traffic.
Why would anyone run a business at a loss like that?

Essentially by this method, it's okay to do something wrong so long as you can afford to do so. In other words, it's sort of like a democracy except who gets a vote and how much your vote is worth is solely determined by how much money you have. Those concerned about their health, the planet, etc. (in this example) may be in the minority therefore their position is not considered. Is this assessment correct, and if not, where does my analogy fail?
Well, you assume that currently, the US democracy isn't already pretty much determined by how much money you have. Which it is, several presidential candidates were kicked out for not having enough cash, and I'm sure there are more loopholes along the way (corporations work with each other, if you're not deep into the payroll, they can just deny you coverage, etc.). It's more or less a fantasy to believe that voting changes anything. You want to influence anything anywhere, you need money. There's a lot of intricacies about how just the "buy your way out of things" system is better than it being combined with the government, but your analogy doesn't seem to fail too much outside of what I've said here, from my point of view. I don't know what this tort law thing the other guys are talking about.

gtg to piano, bbl.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
cutebunny43
Posts: 296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2010 6:33:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/22/2010 6:28:40 PM, Nags wrote:
At 4/22/2010 6:25:26 PM, cutebunny43 wrote:
Incorrect. Most companies would have a salaried lawyer under your idiotic ideals because most citizens wouldn't bother with a lawsuit for a 40 dollar payout. Thus it would be profitable to pollute

Do you even know what a class action is?

I do, but 90% of the people who are being polluted don't and could care less. Furthermore do you know what commissions on class action lawsuits equal? LOL for f+cks sake in your retarded system there are ridiculous amounts of lawsuits and most citizens are getting screwed out of 50% of their money. Where does it go? The lawyers and the polluting companies.

You're bizarre approach to negative externalities is a dreamland...for the lawyers and a nightmare of legal sh*t and random 10 dollar checks in the mail as they are being subjected to 20 dollars worth of pollution.

I can't believe anyone with sense actually goes along with this crap. It's as impractical as socialism.
Mafia for Beginners Signup Now

http://www.debate.org...