LinusK, Burning Man would be proud.
I don’t understand how any logic whatsoever can ever be applied to the nonsense that begins when you post.
I’m not seeing anything that is factually incorrect there, so no strikes for you! I think Libertarianism is a naive philosophy, too. There are many things wrong with it, but the LP is pro-choice, pro-SSM and does not condone either slavery or Jim Crow laws. Jus because I don’t agree with LP philosophy doesn’t mean I’m not going to correct posters who post factually incorrect stuff about it.
Oh, wow, ok, good response!
Thanks John 
Liberals are statists who want to use the power of the state to fight against oligarchs and corporations, remake the social structure into a more egalitarian form and protect various vulnerable groups (as well as the environment). They also support using the state for wealth redistribution. Libertarians are generally opposed to all those things.
Libertarians and liberals both tend to be socially liberal.
Saying libertarians love freedom isn’t totally true. Libertarians hate government. Under a libertarian system, an oligarchy is going to develop which will dramatically limit the freedom of the people who live there. A system where a tiny minority of rich people control the government, media, economy, etc. is not really free for many people.
No one in this thread made the claim that the libertarian party condones slavery or Jim Crow laws, that is a strawman you invented. I said that libertarians speak highly of the US in the 19th century as a time of great liberty (I can source libertarians speaking about the 19th century if you really want) in spite of the reality of the time. It would be nice if you’d debate things people actually wrote.
Geez, guy, I hate Libertarian philosophy like poison, but you’re oversimplifying it beyond even where I would go.
Most Libertarians are “limited state” libertarians, who believe in a government strong enough to enforce the very few laws they see as necessary. Laws against trespass would have to be enforced by this minimum state.
The flaw with Libertarian ideas is that they can’t be used to create a society. They can only be used to perpetuate a society as it exists now. Their ideas can protect property, but cannot build a civilization. They can’t protect opportunity, let alone encourage its growth. Libertarian philosophy is totally based on protection of extant property and power. It would lead to the centralized control of wealth, as in the Robber Baron era of American/World economic history.
Could you explain what exactly I’m supposedly oversimplifying? Libertarians take the position that removing laws against discrimination promotes liberty, but I say that, for the people being discriminated against, that’s not liberty. I don’t think there’s anything oversimplistic about that.
John Mace made the claim that libertarians want no government involvement in ‘white protestant only’ rules apparently as a rebuttal to what I said, but that’s both not actually true and doesn’t contradict what I said. Like you said, libertarians are perfectly happy to have the government enforce trespassing laws, which means they do want the government involved in enforcing ‘white protestant only’ rules. I probably should have just ignored that comment, but I don’t see how I’m oversimplifying anything in my response.
I think it’s noteworthy that libertarians tend to speak of the Robber Baron era of US history as a time that we should emulate, it tells you a lot about their idea of liberty (note for John Mace: I did not say anything about the lp platform here).
The idealization of ‘robber barons’ is interesting in its own right - they are presented as great titans of industry who, through their personal ambition and cleverness managed to build massive wealth because they were unhampered by government interference. But in reality, the land they were building rail roads and oil fields on was taken from Mexico in an aggressive war, and/or stolen from Indians who owned individual pieces of land. The robber barons themselves got huge chunks of land virtually for free, laws giving them a monopoly, and huge grants of government money. Instead of fitting the ‘free market’ and ‘non initiation of force’ ideals, they had huge assistance from the government in building on land that was taken by open aggressive warfare.
You are making a mistake conflating enforcing trespassing laws with enforcing ‘white protestant only’ rules. A clue that you are doing this is that the words are different, but you are implying they are the same.
Well then, what exactly about the 19th century are you saying that L/libertarian types like/d? Why don’t you provide the cite you say you have that demonstrates this. Thus far you have spun a tail of L/libertarians who oppose abortion rights, oppose ‘anti-disrimination’ laws and civil rights (by ignoring the fact that L/libertarians are for smaller government and think that these things will or would be solved fine by individuals). .
Wow. So who is the legitimate arbiter of property rights?
Where does the right to own something - say, a copyright - come from?
I’m sure everyone is in favor of non-aggression. But how do you get there? Will just telling people not to rob or hit, will that do the trick?
And what happens when two people are both claiming the other is the aggressor?
The only “Burning Man” I know about is some sort of festival in the desert.
I guess I’d have to agree that nonsense begins when I post, because I can’t make sense out of what you’re saying.
If you didn’t mean to imply that Libertarians condone slavery and Jim Crow laws, then why bring it up at all? Here’s what you said:
So why, exactly, did you put those two things in your sentence? Did you mean that they speak highly of the US in the 19th century except for slavery and then Jim Crow later on?
Otherwise, it’s crystal clear why you put it there-- in order to associate Libertarians with slavery and Jim Crow laws.
At any rate, here’s your chance to set the record straight.
That’s because you read caricatures of libertarian positions. Many libertarians, including Murray Rothbard, support reparations for slavery for example.
Libertarians believe in the use of force in self defense.
Libertarians believe private courts will be better than govt monopoly courts.
In what they desire, perhaps. The reality of using government to achieve desired ends usually results in authoritarianism. When liberals choose economic justice over liberty, authoritarianism is what results.
That’s not only a bad caricature, it’s just bad economics. Wealth doesn’t flow from the poor to the rich. The poor don’t have wealth. Wealth is created by people engaging in economic activity, and depending on what they do and the relevant laws, both of government and economics, they may or may not reap the majority of the wealth they create. Take Facebook for example. Mark Zuckerburg didn’t take wealth from anyone. He invented a website that hundreds of millions use, and he only needs a few employees to manage it, so almost all of the wealth Facebook creates goes straight to Mark Zuckerburg.
The precise outlines of ownership are defined by law, but ownership is a natural right. Animals own territory, but since there are no laws in the wild, they defend their claims by force. But the desire to have something that is yours is not an invention of man.
This is a type of argument liberals use to justify the limiting of any and all rights. Which is why their claims of being anti-authoritarian demonstrate a lack of self-awareness.
The ability to own comes from your ability to claim something and defend it by force. What government does is take away your need to enforce your claim with brute power(most of the time), and in exchange for that it defines the precise nature of your claim to ownership.
Wealth comes from individuals doing things that add value. When a farmer grows wheat which he sells to a baker, who then makes bread, wealth has been created. No government had to exist for that to occur. When any raw materials are turned into finished goods, value has been added. Wealth has been created. When a new use is found for something that makes it easier to make things, wealth has been created. When people learn how to do things that other people want to buy(like a doctor or a teacher), wealth has been created.
What government does is create an environment where people can deal with each other on the basis of trust and peaceful commerce, whereas in the black market there is no trust and violence can occur at any moment. But the existence of black markets does show that government is not necessary for wealth creation. All that is needed is for someone to want something and for someone else to be able to provide it.
There is no supreme arbiter, just as there is no supreme arbiter now.
Intellectual property is a construct of the state.
Property rights are certainly necessary for a functional economy. But the nature of those rights - how people obtain them, what can be owned, how people may profit from them, what people are allowed to do with their property - make a difference between whether a society can be stable, and whether an economy can work for everyone, or just for some.
Property rights, as you know, are created and destroyed by law. There’s no such thing as a 'natural property right.’ Property rights are either recognized socially and legally, or they’re not. For most of human history, slavery was legal. People could be owned. Slavery allowed some people to live in comfort without working, while others worked without comfort. Nevertheless, eventually slavery was abolished.
Today the work still has to be done: somebody has to drill the wells, hammer the nails, and move the products. To be an owner - of a boat, or a company or a chain of stores - means you get a share of the value of the labor of the people who do the work, without necessarily having to work yourself.
Anyway, when you talk about capital, I assume you don’t mean money. You’re talking about real capital: tools, equipment, machinery, transportation networks, education, skills, buildings, factories. Things like that. You’re absolutely right, of course. With the proper skills, knowledge, and equipment, one person can do the work of hundreds. Capital is a multiplier. It allows one person to do the work of many. Capital, however, is not created by money. It’s created by labor.
And natural resources are also necessary. Although it takes labor to put them to use.
Capital and resources are necessary to create wealth, but the first is a product of labor itself, and the second becomes wealth only after the application of labor.
So while you’re right, that all of those things are necessary to create wealth, I’d argue that it is the labor of a country or community that originally supplies it with real capital, along with the necessities and luxuries of life.
When you talk about the “something else,” I think the something else has to do with integrity, honesty, and work ethic, as well as the rule of law. Even simple transactions are hard to complete, if, for example, you don’t know whether the electrician you hired is really a electrician, whether he’s going to do what he said he’s going to do, or whether he’s going to rip you off, whether the house is going to burn down after he leaves. And if the legal system is dysfunctional, or if bribery and corruption are rampant, even simple disputes can’t be resolved fairly.
You’re making a lot of statements about what libertarians tend to say. Do you have any evidence that libertarians actually tend to say the things that you say they tend to say?
Did the labor of the community originally create the atoms? Or did the atoms already exist?
You can argue till you’re blue in the force that “labor” originally provided real capital, but don’t be too surprised if the laws of physics imply something else.