Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:27 AM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 406

Do libertarians realize private citizens are just as oppressive as the government?


So it seems many libertarians just hate the government because it takes away their freedom. It sounds like they want to go back to the 1920s or 30s with a laissez faire method of governing. But, my issue with that is fairly obvious. If it's not the government taking away your freedom, then it's going to be the robber baron who owns the factory you work and live in. So is this what libertarians want? Would they rather have their freedom trampled on by those more powerful than them with 0 influence, and no checks and balances on them? In a libertarian society, I would just trample all over my neighbors because I have more money, and firepower than them. Maybe I'm just naive and humans actually aren't greedy. It's probably all just a fabrication or over exaggeration right? No way someone is going to take away my freedom if theres no government, right?
  #2  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:39 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
How about we start with the basics. Don’t steal. Don’t deny other’s freedom.

Theft by tax vastly outweighs private theft.

Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
  #3  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:53 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.
But you don't believe in those basics. You've said previously that you would have preferred if slavery in the US had just taken its own course and hope it petered out on its own. ie you don't even think it's the government's place to enforce freedom.
  #4  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:05 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
But you don't believe in those basics. You've said previously that you would have preferred if slavery in the US had just taken its own course and hope it petered out on its own. ie you don't even think it's the government's place to enforce freedom.
“Enforce freedom” by total war, conscription, occupation, cronyism, and increased taxation? No. Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
I bet you believe the invasion of Iraq was simple enforcement of freedom.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-04-2019 at 12:07 PM.
  #5  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:15 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
ďEnforce freedomĒ by total war, conscription, occupation, cronyism, and increased taxation? No. Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
The way you describe the Civil War, it's like Lincoln invaded the South to start the war; as opposed to the South firing the first shots because it got afraid that its racism may someday be not as welcome.

OP, you see what you're dealing with? The type of libertarians you're talking about care about facts as much as young earth creationists. The total commitment to the cause is what's important, not reality.
  #6  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:21 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
No, it didn't. Slavery was never given up voluntarily by the slave owners. It was always ended by some authority telling the slave owners they had to give up slavery. And if it was peaceful it was only because the slave owners backed down in the face of threatened force.
  #7  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:11 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, it didn't. Slavery was never given up voluntarily by the slave owners. It was always ended by some authority telling the slave owners they had to give up slavery. And if it was peaceful it was only because the slave owners backed down in the face of threatened force.
Oh you misread. I said it was ended peacefully. It was. Especially compared to the carnage you think was necessary for some deeply ideological or psychological reason.
  #8  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:28 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
ďEnforce freedomĒ by total war, conscription, occupation, cronyism, and increased taxation? No. Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
I bet you believe the invasion of Iraq was simple enforcement of freedom.
That's a bad bet, you lose. But you've shown your hand by including "increased taxation" in your list of unacceptable costs of enforcing freedom.

And a history lesson: the invasion of Iraq was not total war, didn't rely on conscription nor increased taxes. Sounds like your kind of war.
  #9  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:19 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's a bad bet, you lose. But you've shown your hand by including "increased taxation" in your list of unacceptable costs of enforcing freedom.

And a history lesson: the invasion of Iraq was not total war, didn't rely on conscription nor increased taxes. Sounds like your kind of war.
“Enforcing freedom”. Lol sounds like a jailer’s term. If the shoe fits.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-04-2019 at 02:20 PM.
  #10  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:38 PM
Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
ďEnforce freedomĒ by total war, conscription, occupation, cronyism, and increased taxation? No. Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
Conscription was introduced to this continent by the traitors - and in addition to conscription, the traitors. government decided that people who volunteered for one year's service were required to provide 3 years service instead. The so-called Confederacy also had an income tax - and required that farmers pay their taxes in food, rather than in the fake money that the Confederates printed.
  #11  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:58 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
Conscription was introduced to this continent by the traitors - and in addition to conscription, the traitors. government decided that people who volunteered for one year's service were required to provide 3 years service instead. The so-called Confederacy also had an income tax - and required that farmers pay their taxes in food, rather than in the fake money that the Confederates printed.
Yes. Statists gonna state. Where have I said the Confederacy was a libertarian paradise? The idea is laughable.
  #12  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:17 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.

Theft by tax vastly outweighs private theft.

Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
Of course it does. We have a functioning government that acts against crimes like private theft and private imprisonment. Eliminate that government oversight and there will be plenty of individuals willing to step into the void and start stealing and enslaving.
  #13  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:06 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Of course it does. We have a functioning government that acts against crimes like private theft and private imprisonment. Eliminate that government oversight and there will be plenty of individuals willing to step into the void and start stealing and enslaving.
Hmm. Two power centers in society broadly speaking, capital and government. You believe the one who currently imprisons and steals the most protects us from the other. You know the one who clothes and feeds billions for less and less inputs every year, while government does less and less with more and more.

Yes it takes some ideological gymnastics to pull off something like that.
  #14  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:41 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Hmm. Two power centers in society broadly speaking, capital and government. You believe the one who currently imprisons and steals the most protects us from the other.
Capital controls the vast, vast majority of economic activity, and the result is a nearly permanent underclass with the top 1% owning half of everything. I guess we should give capital even more power, eh?
  #15  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:52 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Hmm. Two power centers in society broadly speaking, capital and government. You believe the one who currently imprisons and steals the most protects us from the other. You know the one who clothes and feeds billions for less and less inputs every year, while government does less and less with more and more.

Yes it takes some ideological gymnastics to pull off something like that.
No, it just takes an awareness of reality.

Our society functions because we have a balance between two power centers. They each keep the other in check. An absolute government, unchecked by any private enterprise, would be terrible. And absolute capitalism, unchecked by any government, would be just as terrible.
  #16  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:15 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, it just takes an awareness of reality.

Our society functions because we have a balance between two power centers. They each keep the other in check. An absolute government, unchecked by any private enterprise, would be terrible. And absolute capitalism, unchecked by any government, would be just as terrible.
Ok so I guess, since government is doing the vast majority of stealing and imprisoning, capital must be strengthened in relation to the state. This is abundantly clear given the facts. When capital stops clothing me and feeding me and housing me so cheaply, and starts taxing me and harassing me based on my peaceful behavior, I will favor a stronger state.
  #17  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:55 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.
Yes, let's start with the basics.

Who, exactly, is going to make this happen?
  #18  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:45 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Don’t steal. Don’t deny other’s freedom.
That's not very basic, and presupposes a framework of ownership. Who determines the proper ownership of property, and the time at which it's established and where changing ownership by taking becomes 'stealing'? Most of the land in the US was seized by force from its original inhabitants and a large portion of it worked by slave labor. For that that wasn't worked by slave labor, the majority of it was worked by using seized wealth and the threat of either direct government violence or government approved violence. The story is similar in Europe, though the history of seizure runs back longer. I've never heard a good libertarian explanation of why people who own huge amounts of land seized from it's original owners, money made by forcing people to work at gun/sword point, and the like should be considered legitimate property owners, but the 'don't steal' admonition seems to apply to them. That means that what Libertarians are saying is "The stuff I stole is mine now, but don't do any further stealing, and that includes taking back what I stole from you, or things that I bought with money I stole in the first place."

Similarly, does it count as 'stealing' if I operate a factory and use your land to dispose of my waste by polluting it? But how does one address this stealing without things like broad anti-pollution laws, as the harm from pollution tends to involve an accumulation of small, distributed, long-term damage, not something easily addressed by an individual within their lifetime. (And especially by an individual before irreprable harm happens). I've never seen a good Libertarian solution to this issue, and the general comments from Libertarians on issues like secondhand smoke run contrary to their being one.

Last edited by Pantastic; 06-04-2019 at 03:48 PM.
  #19  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:06 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
That's not very basic, and presupposes a framework of ownership. Who determines the proper ownership of property, and the time at which it's established and where changing ownership by taking becomes 'stealing'?
Ok we can get more basic. Do you reject self-ownership, or should I prove self-ownership before proceeding with the rest?


Quote:
Most of the land in the US was seized by force from its original inhabitants and a large portion of it worked by slave labor. For that that wasn't worked by slave labor, the majority of it was worked by using seized wealth and the threat of either direct government violence or government approved violence. The story is similar in Europe, though the history of seizure runs back longer. I've never heard a good libertarian explanation of why people who own huge amounts of land seized from it's original owners, money made by forcing people to work at gun/sword point, and the like should be considered legitimate property owners, but the 'don't steal' admonition seems to apply to them.
Libertarian do believe it applies to those thieves and heirs to thieves. We simply believe that these claims should be proven on an individual basis. Collectively calling Euro-Americans thieves and forcing reparations to Native Americans would be incorrect. The proper course would be for a Native American to dispute specific property ownership of a Euro-American (or African-American etc.).

This is not a secret. Mr. Libertarian Murray Rothbard believed that a plantation should have been given to the enslaved workers of that land. Perhaps there is some disinformation floating around about Libertarians. Seems like all anybody has read is Ayn Rand.

Quote:
That means that what Libertarians are saying is "The stuff I stole is mine now, but don't do any further stealing, and that includes taking back what I stole from you, or things that I bought with money I stole in the first place."
No libertarians believe that.

Quote:
Similarly, does it count as 'stealing' if I operate a factory and use your land to dispose of my waste by polluting it? But how does one address this stealing without things like broad anti-pollution laws, as the harm from pollution tends to involve an accumulation of small, distributed, long-term damage, not something easily addressed by an individual within their lifetime. (And especially by an individual before irreprable harm happens). I've never seen a good Libertarian solution to this issue, and the general comments from Libertarians on issues like secondhand smoke run contrary to their being one.
This is a complicated issue but in brief, law is in shambles because it has been monopolized by the state. There is no adequate recognition of property rights. If there were, all unpermitted pollution would be forbidden. For some reason people believe libertarians, who champion property above all, believe anyone can pollute anotherís property with impunity.
  #20  
Old 06-05-2019, 05:30 AM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Ok we can get more basic. Do you reject self-ownership, or should I prove self-ownership before proceeding with the rest?




Libertarian do believe it applies to those thieves and heirs to thieves. We simply believe that these claims should be proven on an individual basis. Collectively calling Euro-Americans thieves and forcing reparations to Native Americans would be incorrect. The proper course would be for a Native American to dispute specific property ownership of a Euro-American (or African-American etc.).

Can you please clarify this? Who will these folks take the dispute to?
  #21  
Old 06-05-2019, 05:44 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
Can you please clarify this? Who will these folks take the dispute to?
The marketplace. Marketplace knows all, judges all.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #22  
Old 06-05-2019, 01:33 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Ok we can get more basic. Do you reject self-ownership, or should I prove self-ownership before proceeding with the rest?
If you're going to play that game, you need to explicitly define all of the terms you're using and stick to one definition. Libertarians generally use weird and shifting definitions of terms like 'ownership', 'self-ownership', 'force', and 'theft', and phrases like 'reject self-ownership' and 'prove self-ownership' don't make sense within the usual definitions of the words. I'm probably not going to bother engaging anything that revolves around weird definitions though, as I've found it to be a pointless waste of time in the past.

Quote:
Libertarian do believe it applies to those thieves and heirs to thieves. We simply believe that these claims should be proven on an individual basis. Collectively calling Euro-Americans thieves and forcing reparations to Native Americans would be incorrect. The proper course would be for a Native American to dispute specific property ownership of a Euro-American (or African-American etc.).
So what you're saying is that if you claim title to stolen property now, you get to keep what you've got unless someone manages to prove that they personally and individually hurt by it. And you're free to use that immense wealth to defend the title and attack them, while they cannot use the money in dispute to pursue those claims. And if you or your ancestors killed off everyone that you stole from, there's no individual to claim against you.

Quote:
This is not a secret. Mr. Libertarian Murray Rothbard believed that a plantation should have been given to the enslaved workers of that land.
"Should have been given" is just a cop-out. Saying that people should have done something different in the past doesn't address the issue that they didn't do it, and continue to profit from it to this day. In principle, Libertarians might same some lofty stuff, but in practice, it's "This is mine even though I stole it, prove that you as an individual were the one stolen from'

Quote:
No libertarians believe that.
It's exactly what your 'these claims should be proven on an individual basis' amounts to in practice.

Quote:
This is a complicated issue but in brief, law is in shambles because it has been monopolized by the state. There is no adequate recognition of property rights. If there were, all unpermitted pollution would be forbidden.
That's a complete dodge, typical of Libertarians "Well, law is in shambles, and I'll ramble about why actual functioning systems are bad instead of actually answering the question." The vague allusion to some kind of permits that would forbid some pollution but not all doesn't actually answer the question at all. The only framework I've heard before from Libertarians doesn't involve any kind of permits, but instead requires that each individual who objects to pollution has to prove specific harm in court, and that there would be no preemptive check on pollution but instead the possibility of claiming damages after the fact.

Quote:
For some reason people believe libertarians, who champion property above all, believe anyone can pollute anotherís property with impunity.
The reason is that people listen to what Libertarians say and do and who they vote for, and care about the actual effects of what the ideas would have, rather than how Libertarians would see themselves. What current anti-pollution laws do Libertarians support, for example? How do Libertarians feel about the issue of second-hand smoke, that is limitations on polluting the bodies of people near smokers?
  #23  
Old 06-05-2019, 01:56 PM
Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
That's a complete dodge, typical of Libertarians "Well, law is in shambles, and I'll ramble about why actual functioning systems are bad instead of actually answering the question." The vague allusion to some kind of permits that would forbid some pollution but not all doesn't actually answer the question at all. The only framework I've heard before from Libertarians doesn't involve any kind of permits, but instead requires that each individual who objects to pollution has to prove specific harm in court, and that there would be no preemptive check on pollution but instead the possibility of claiming damages after the fact.
First: Once again, it is shown that denigrating another system does nothing to support your preferred system. It is a logical non sequitur, and need not be treated as a real argument.

Second: Negative externalities disprove the idea that an unregulated or only after the fact regulated market can survive. You can analyze it as a straight-up example of the Prisoner's Dilemma from game theory, and not even the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma because, one, it's possible to leave the market when things begin to go sour, and, two, even if it isn't, enough people will believe it is to cause problems. You need some entity outside that game theory trap to enforce rules to break everyone else out of the trap, and any entity capable of doing that is a government, regardless of what it's called. Therefore, you not only need a government, you need a government which enforces preemptive regulations which prevent damage. Here's a whole log essay on this basic concept.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
  #24  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:03 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.
I think we may have the root of the problem here. If libertarians could indeed make people not steal, kill and rape, but instead respect each others freedoms, it could work quite well. Much like communism, or a host of other utopian movements.

I suspect it starts with debates in a circle of like-minded people, and never actually incorporates the fact that in a real-world situation, the "people" would be made up of just as many individuals from the more unsavory biker gangs as individuals from the debates. (Actually the relative percentage of the biker-archetypes would probably be rising quickly). And with the greatest number of people somewhere in-between and looking out for number one.
  #25  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:23 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I think we may have the root of the problem here. If libertarians could indeed make people not steal, kill and rape, but instead respect each others freedoms, it could work quite well. Much like communism, or a host of other utopian movements.

I suspect it starts with debates in a circle of like-minded people, and never actually incorporates the fact that in a real-world situation, the "people" would be made up of just as many individuals from the more unsavory biker gangs as individuals from the debates. (Actually the relative percentage of the biker-archetypes would probably be rising quickly). And with the greatest number of people somewhere in-between and looking out for number one.
Private law and private police competing for customers would be much better than monopolized state law and police. There are already more private police than govt police and the govt police imprison and kill far more frequently.
  #26  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:36 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Private law and private police competing for customers would be much better than monopolized state law and police. There are already more private police than govt police and the govt police imprison and kill far more frequently.
It was tried. Its called feudalism. It did not improve individual liberty. A modified version of it is still popular, mob activity.

Sure, the state has a monopoly on violence today, that is why there is so much less violence and more rights, which you don't have to defend with violence.
  #27  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:20 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
Outweighs it? What does 'outweighs' mean, exactly? If I put you in prison, do you prefer the prison that's only accountable to whether its CEO makes numbers based on its inputs?

Yeah I know. Academic question, white people don't go to prison.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-04-2019 at 06:21 PM.
  #28  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:42 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.

Theft by tax vastly outweighs private theft.

Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
Of course, the invisible hand of the free market will take care of all the business cheaters, right.

Except, of course, for the ones who set up the same scam in a new town.
  #29  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:28 PM
Mcmechanic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 66
Do Libertarian ideas only begin at the civil war? What about before? The Declaration of Independence? How would things of been different?
  #30  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:34 PM
Pardel-Lux's Avatar
Pardel-Lux is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.

Theft by tax vastly outweighs private theft.

Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
May I ask you a hypothetical question? Imagine as a thought experiment that you and your twin sibling are still in your mother's womb and a genie speaks to both of you: one of you will be born free of all state oppression and will never ever pay any taxes. She will be born in South Sudan. How much taxes would you be willing to contribute as a percentage of your lifelong income for the privilege of being the other sibling, born male, straight and white in the USA, subject to the rules of the country, taxation and bureaucracy, with full citizenship rights?
(Question adapted from memory from a reference to Warren Buffet in a recent article I read in the Guardian)
__________________
'Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.' - Charles Darwin.
I am living proof of that.
  #31  
Old 06-08-2019, 10:03 PM
Haldurson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.

Theft by tax vastly outweighs private theft.

Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
There are so many problems with this. You started out fine with don't steal. I have problems with the rest of it:
1. You cannot possibly go through life exercising your freedoms without bumping into other people's freedoms. And it will always work out that those with the most power, whether it's economic or otherwise, will tend to exercise their freedoms at the expense of the freedom of those without power. You see this happening with big companies squeezing the life out of individuals, whether it's through not paying their employees a living wage, or destroying or poisoning rivers or even the oceans. IF you want to argue that governments do this also, yeah, they can. But at least we have more control over government.
2. While I agree that money from taxes is not always spent to benefit those who pay taxes, and is more often than not, not spent effectively, I agree. But there are things that cannot be achieved without taxes that are public goods. Argue that taxes are too high, or that more of the money should go in one direction and less in another, I hear you. But taxation in a modern nation is necessary for infrastructure, for education, to monitor air and water quality as well as food quality, and as a check against people's and big companies worst impulses.
3. One of the worst disasters to ever occur was the privatization of prisons. Running prisons for profit created these huge conflicts of interest where people were jailed for profit for even minor crimes, and economic crimes (ie. being poor).

There are certain realities that libertarians refuse to look at, where competition doesn't work or is not possible, where the public good is sabotaged instead of helped through leaving those things up to private enterprise. While I believe in capitalism in principle, far too often I've seen the damage that corporations do when they are allowed to operate unchecked. My own family was driven to poverty by medical bills, something that the government would never have allowed to happen in most other modern industrial countries.
  #32  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:45 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
The 1930s was not a period for the laissez-faire method of governing. Your history needs revision. Now that you know the Great Depression occured under the unprecedentedly interventionist Hoover and Roosevelt administrations, have you changed your mind?

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-04-2019 at 11:47 AM.
  #33  
Old 06-05-2019, 03:00 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
The 1930s was not a period for the laissez-faire method of governing. Your history needs revision. Now that you know the Great Depression occured under the unprecedentedly interventionist Hoover and Roosevelt administrations, have you changed your mind?
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the economy is like a large ship. It takes a while to change course. The Great Depression started under Hoover and continued under Roosevelt but they were hardly responsible for it. That credit goes to Calvin Coolidge, who is best remembered for laissez-faire governing, with honorable mention to Warren Harding who was incompetent at best, corrupt at worst.
  #34  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:20 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimfromNapa View Post
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the economy is like a large ship. It takes a while to change course. The Great Depression started under Hoover and continued under Roosevelt but they were hardly responsible for it. That credit goes to Calvin Coolidge, who is best remembered for laissez-faire governing, with honorable mention to Warren Harding who was incompetent at best, corrupt at worst.
The seeds of the Depression were planted before Coolidge or Harding, for sure, and of course Hoover could have vetoed the Smoot-Hawley tariff and thus not made things a lot worse.

Saying Coolidge was "responsible for it" is just wrong. The Great Depression, like most major world events, can be apportioned to thousands of people over the course of generations. The causes of the Depression are STILL debated by very smart economists.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #35  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:10 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,306
Of course Libertarians know that oppression by individuals is about the same as oppression by individuals...but they assume/hope that in a Libertarian society they have a decent chance of being the individuals that oppress.
  #36  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:26 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Of course Libertarians know that oppression by individuals is about the same as oppression by individuals...but they assume/hope that in a Libertarian society they have a decent chance of being the individuals that oppress.
If they wanted to oppress theyíd become a statist. Much easier than wage an educational campaign to turn people into Libertarians.
  #37  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:32 PM
BrotherCadfael is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,238
Assuming you don't work for Microsoft and don't use their products, Bill Gates has almost no power over you. Compare this to power potentially exercised by the lowest GS-5 employee of the IRS if they choose to do so.


Individuals can certainly oppress - but they have less opportunity to do so.
  #38  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:35 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
Assuming you don't work for Microsoft and don't use their products, Bill Gates has almost no power over you. Compare this to power potentially exercised by the lowest GS-5 employee of the IRS if they choose to do so.


Individuals can certainly oppress - but they have less opportunity to do so.
If libertarians had their way and government regulation was abolished, that opportunity for individuals to oppress would increase greatly.
  #39  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:43 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,717
Indeed.

Without federal regulations, Microsoft would own the entire operating system market now. Lest we forget, MSFT bailed out Apple back in the 90s as part of a defense against the anti-trust suit they were facing.

Without regulation, either Apple would have failed or MSFT would have simply absorbed it. Then, with 100% (effectively) of the PC operating system and application system they would have been in the position to enforce their will on every computer user in the world.
  #40  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:16 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Indeed.

Without federal regulations, Microsoft would own the entire operating system market now. Lest we forget, MSFT bailed out Apple back in the 90s as part of a defense against the anti-trust suit they were facing.

Without regulation, either Apple would have failed or MSFT would have simply absorbed it. Then, with 100% (effectively) of the PC operating system and application system they would have been in the position to enforce their will on every computer user in the world.
Yes a lot of fact-free tech-geek pablum. The same type of nonsense was believed when they took down Standard Oil years after it reached its peak. I think it had like a 6% market share.
  #41  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:29 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes a lot of fact-free tech-geek pablum. The same type of nonsense was believed when they took down Standard Oil years after it reached its peak. I think it had like a 6% market share.
IOW, I understood nothing of what you said.
  #42  
Old 06-05-2019, 05:34 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes a lot of fact-free tech-geek pablum. The same type of nonsense was believed when they took down Standard Oil years after it reached its peak. I think it had like a 6% market share.
I understand that libertarians like to point out that Standard Oil's market share was decreasing at the time that it was broken up.
But yeah...not 6%. Multiply that by 10 at least. At its peak it was in the 90s.
  #43  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:23 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If libertarians had their way and government regulation was abolished, that opportunity for individuals to oppress would increase greatly.
If authoritarians had their way, they would confiscate 18% of societyís loot and build prisons and war machines.
  #44  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:25 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
If authoritarians had their way, they would confiscate 18% of societyís loot and build prisons and war machines.
That's a peculiarly precise figure-where did you get it from?
  #45  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:35 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
You really think that any IRS employee can launch a vendetta against someone without fear of firing or worse?
Hell, if that were true we'd have Trump's tax returns by now.
Individuals are limited in their oppression by the very government you hate.
No. People form political parties to oppress. Republicans form to oppress immigrants and drug users. Democrats form to oppress productive individuals and drug sellers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That's a peculiarly precise figure-where did you get it from?
Taxes have beboped around that figure since WWII.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law

Though his law says 19.5%.
  #46  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:15 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Libertarians vary by degree. Some are moderates, albeit firm supporters of Reagan's "Starve the Beast" approach of building up debt so that Ds, when back in control, cannot afford major investments. But some libertarians are quite extreme: perhaps even akin to the shrieking SovCit driving her RV without a license we saw on YouTube recently.

By now, plain "conservatives" are rather right-wing. Anyone still adhering to a "libertarian" label ó unless it's just because they like to smoke dope ó are surely pretty radical.

Let's first ask
(1) Was it proper and intelligent to coerce the population into smallpox vaccines? (Some Libs answer: Coercion is despicable. Liberty encompasses the Liberty to not have a jackbooted statist stick needles into my child. Sure, the bug might have been eradicated. So what?)

(2) Is it right and proper for a country dependent on a large rice-growing basin to tax citizens (perhaps at gunpoint) and build a system of dams and reservoirs for flood control? (Some Libs answer: There are so many alternatives preferable to seizing private wealth for Stalin-style central planning. Villagers could build levees on their own land when adjacent to the River. Chicago BOE will trade rainfall futures that can be used to hedge against floods. Why haven't these squatting farmers moved to the hills, anyway?))

(3) Which came first historically, property rights or coercive governance? (One Libertarian chose Medieval Ireland as his best example of ideal governance. I mentioned that payment of a tithe to the church was almost mandatory. "I wouldn't pay", he sniffed.)
Some libertarian(s) here have given wrong answers to all three questions, IIRC> I think we first need to move past that.

Libertarians have been discussed before, e.g. in this short Pit thread. Mods: Please delete the link if linking to a Pit thread violates a rule.

I would also like to ask Libertarians who profess to admire the elegance of free market solutions:
What do you think of ideas like Carbon Tax, which improve free market economics by assessing otherwise unafforded external costs?
  #47  
Old 06-05-2019, 07:57 AM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Libertarians vary by degree. Some are moderates, albeit firm supporters of Reagan's "Starve the Beast" approach of building up debt so that Ds, when back in control, cannot afford major investments. But some libertarians are quite extreme: perhaps even akin to the shrieking SovCit driving her RV without a license we saw on YouTube recently.

By now, plain "conservatives" are rather right-wing. Anyone still adhering to a "libertarian" label ó unless it's just because they like to smoke dope ó are surely pretty radical.

Let's first ask
(1) Was it proper and intelligent to coerce the population into smallpox vaccines? (Some Libs answer: Coercion is despicable. Liberty encompasses the Liberty to not have a jackbooted statist stick needles into my child. Sure, the bug might have been eradicated. So what?)

(2) Is it right and proper for a country dependent on a large rice-growing basin to tax citizens (perhaps at gunpoint) and build a system of dams and reservoirs for flood control? (Some Libs answer: There are so many alternatives preferable to seizing private wealth for Stalin-style central planning. Villagers could build levees on their own land when adjacent to the River. Chicago BOE will trade rainfall futures that can be used to hedge against floods. Why haven't these squatting farmers moved to the hills, anyway?))

(3) Which came first historically, property rights or coercive governance? (One Libertarian chose Medieval Ireland as his best example of ideal governance. I mentioned that payment of a tithe to the church was almost mandatory. "I wouldn't pay", he sniffed.)
Some libertarian(s) here have given wrong answers to all three questions, IIRC> I think we first need to move past that.

Libertarians have been discussed before, e.g. in this short Pit thread. Mods: Please delete the link if linking to a Pit thread violates a rule.

I would also like to ask Libertarians who profess to admire the elegance of free market solutions:
What do you think of ideas like Carbon Tax, which improve free market economics by assessing otherwise unafforded external costs?
\

I loved it when Libs claimed income taxes were unconstitutional, ignoring the fact that states passed the 16th amendment
  #48  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:24 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
Assuming you don't work for Microsoft and don't use their products, Bill Gates has almost no power over you. Compare this to power potentially exercised by the lowest GS-5 employee of the IRS if they choose to do so.


Individuals can certainly oppress - but they have less opportunity to do so.
You really think that any IRS employee can launch a vendetta against someone without fear of firing or worse?
Hell, if that were true we'd have Trump's tax returns by now.
Individuals are limited in their oppression by the very government you hate.
  #49  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:58 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,484
In Jared Diamond's "the World Before Yesterday" he makes a cogent case (based on interviews with tribesmen in Papua New Guinea, mainly), that the earliest and most basic need for government is to stop males from killing each other and raping women. Which is accomplished by establishing "justice" aka the rule of law maintained by threat of force. When this level of government is achieved, it is an enormous and deeply appreciated improvement in the life of every community touched by it.

Another example would be medieval Iceland.

The trouble with libertarians is that they imagine civilization exists independent of threat of force from above. Apparently it really doesn't.
  #50  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:19 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,261
No deeply ideological or psychological reasons behind slavery then?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017