Oh come on, you can’t be serious. Starting your own business is a huge risk, and unless you’re doing it with someone else’s money, you can lose big and end up far worse-off than you started.
Fuck “black and white” arguments that pretend that unless you support one extreme you must be supporting the other extreme.
Bullshit. That may be the single dumbest thing posted in this entire thread. You don’t start a business with magic beans. You have to work–sometimes for years, as I did–to get to a position where starting a business is even possible. Once the business is started, the owner could lose everything–and many of them do.
If the employers are forced to hire and/or not fire employees, maybe the world needs to find out what happens when the employers go on strike. Hey, that might make for an interesting book… 
I know! Imagine my shock when I learned our quarterly blood drive wasn’t for the red cross at all. It was for our evil corporate overlords to bathe in.
Saying someone who owns a company doesn’t have “risk” is just plain wrong. That you actually believe this isn’t even possible. Not even for you.
I think someone wrote a fantasy novel along those lines, but I’m not sure.
Then why doesn’t everyone become an owner and then no one has any risks?
No way! That would never sell!!
In theory libertarians place property rights equal to all other forms of liberty.
In practice, property is subservient to the overriding right of having an utter absence of self-awareness. Property rights are #2. I remember the Chicago boys rushing down to Chile to help Pinochet the Executioner – all in the name of freedom of course. Allende was about to commit atrocity: they knew this in their hearts and had no need to bother with facts, experience or evidence. So when Pinochet rounded up the undesirables into a soccer stadium and had them shot, that was ok. He meant well. After all welfare states inevitably lead to tyranny. So it’s appropriate to prop that dictatorship with direct aid, remaining silent about their abuses, while warning about creeping tyranny in Sweden.
I would say the responsibility lies with the hiker for not planning a route that didn’t cross someone else’s property, not bringing adequate water, not dressing properly, or generally not being prepared.
Now, should the property owner help out? Probably, but that’s a moral judgment, not a political or legal one.
I’d say it’s more of an autistic detachment from social interaction. Most adolescents, after all, grow up.
That’s an even stronger condemnation of libertarianism than Subterraneanus’s assertion that libertarianism is an adolescent detachment from reality. Any purported political philosophy that is so totally focused on idealistic principles that it’s completely unconcerned with outcomes isn’t a political philosophy at all and has no grounding in reality; it would be, kindly and at best, referred to as a fantasy. Indeed in everyday life that kind of reality detachment is often referred to as insanity.
You can’t “make” freedom – as I said before, freedom is really a zero-sum game; all you can do is reallocate freedoms between government and citizens, businesses and customers, employers and employees. Libertarianism proposes to do away with government regulation of anything and let the chips fall where they may. It’s a close cousin of anarchy and results in the same kind of broken and lawless society. It’s the nature of human society that it will always organize itself, and absent a rationally grounded and fairly architected system of governance, it will become organized around – and in the favor of – the most aggressive and the most powerful. There are lots of examples of such societies: early feudal societies, the early industrial revolution, the robber baron era, and countries like Somalia a few years ago. These may be far from the libertarian ideals, but they are the inevitable outcomes.
You put this well.
It was said earlier that libertarianism makes no promises of happiness or whatever, but if practicing this ideal isn’t supposed to improve humanity’s quality of life–and in fact, will likely decrease it for unfortunate demographic groups who suddenly find themselves without housing, medical care, or education at the whim of public opinion–then what is the point of it?
“Move to a place where you won’t be discriminated against.” Really, yo? This is what counts as a sincere solution to Libertopia’s shortcomings? One can only hope that would be people’s reaction to sustained marginalization, but that’s shamelessly naive. The more likely outcome is social unrest. Violence, rioting, vandalism, ittering. Exactly what we see in places where businesses discriminate and the government does little to stop it.
If disenfranchised people can’t move (because they can’t find work, no school wants to enroll them because they’re “undesirable”, and they can’t even get a taxi ride) who is going to pay for all the problems this creates? Okay, so maybe the local businesses are going to have to hire some guns to “police” the streets where they operate. If these privatized cops start acting like fascists because that’s what their employers demand, are we still living in Libertopia?
Is a society patrolled by cops who are accountable to Starbucks management rather than Uncle Sam a less scary, less coercive place, even if those cops abuse their power? If Starbucks cops shoot first, ask questions last if an Undesirable enters the establishment–and management and customers are too calloused to care about this–would this be okay in Libertopia? Or is morality determined by what the market allows?
Where do you get this kind of stuff? First of all, who is talking about “making” freedom? Secondly, where is it written that freedom is a zero sum game? Can you spell out the calculus of “conservation of freedom” (a la conservation of momentum) when the slaves were freed in the US?
Well, at least you didn’t post SOMALIA! :rolleyes:
And you are confusing what sounds like Free Market purists with Libertarians. Not exactly whom you are refer to as the “Chicago boys”, but what you are describing is not Libertarianism. Not even close.
Bone claims to have a political philosophy that automagically gives everyone more freedom, apparently at no cost or liability to anyone. But then again, he claims libertarianism is not concerned with the outcome of its practices, so if everyone ends up worse off or enslaved as an unintended consequence of following naive idealism, that’s not his problem.
You haven’t figured out by now that all human relations are a balance between our own wants and desires and the rights of others?
Would be interesting if you could go back in time and ask the slave owners how they felt about it. Fairly strongly, I gather. I understand there was even some kind of war…
That’s not the same as a zero sum game.
Wow. You just equated the “freedom to own slaves” with the “freedom to not be a slave”. And you’re making fun of Libertarian philosophy? I’d say that’s interesting, but I think it’s more disturbing than interesting…
Yes, I do refuse to accept it. I think that libertarians say one thing while doing another. And nothing in this thread has shown me I’m wrong.
The only “persecution” libertarians are suffering here is being asked to answer some questions about their ideology.
No. You’ve been show you are wrong, and you refuse to accept it.
See, that’s another thing you just made up. Where did I say anyone was being “persecuted”?
On a side note, I barely understand libertarian ideology and I think it’s awful. Does this make me a bad person?
</durnk>