Libertarianism is incoherent - Page 21 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14590862
TheRedPill wrote:Libertarianism is not anarchism, it certainly isn't capitalism.

The fundamental principle is the freedom of each person to live their life as they choose so long as it doesn't interfere with the right of others to do the same.

Obviously, conflicting choices will exist. There will be a need to compromise, to consider the effect of our choices on others. There is no such thing as total freedom, libertarians are not naïve. However, the way in which these conflicts are to be resolved must be done as locally as possible in order to be effective and more appropriate to those involved.

Libertarians believe in government, but only to resolve the conflict referred to, in as small a capacity as possible, and as close to those effected as poossible.

Capitalism in it's present form is not really capitalism. Those who benefit from the unfair allocation of resources and wealth do so with the assistance of large corrupt federal government. They have the power to influence the creation of laws to their benefit. Remove this oversized and unnecessary government and you remove the monopolizing hold of these institutions.

True market competition, far more localized, and less government interference will make the distribution of wealth look far different than what you see now.

Libertarianism isn't a catalyst to greed, corruption, and misery. It is it's replacement.

I would advise anyone wishing to learn about libertarianism never to go beyond a dictionary. That is all you will ever need.


I like this explanation.
#14590936
I know all I need to know about Libertarianism. Working class kids dying up chimneys, down mines and in factories. All to make profit for some idle rich suited bastard who has never done real work with his hands in his life. No fucking thanks.
#14591100
Decky wrote:I know all I need to know about Libertarianism. Working class kids dying up chimneys, down mines and in factories. All to make profit for some idle rich suited bastard who has never done real work with his hands in his life. No fucking thanks.

You present a false comparison. You present it like we could either choose to have children working in mines living at 18th century subsistence or we could have those kids in school living like 21st century middle class. This was a choice people in the 18th century never had. You can't legislate people into properity. You can legislate them into poverty.
#14591137
Nunt wrote:You can't legislate people into properity. You can legislate them into poverty.


You can legislate people into prosperity (a certain level of development must already be in place). And you can legislate them right back out again. Socialism is about legislating people into prosperity, and libertarianism is all about legislating them back out. This is its only purpose; talk about freedom and individualism is intended to dupe their cadres.
#14591195
Libertarians want it so you only pay what you use, until the firemen come to put out their fire, or they have to call the police at 2 AM about neighours, or use the roads, the sidewalks, the sewage systems, the hospitals, bridges... in short the entire infrastructure that is built and maintained by taxes.

But no, taxes are theft...
#14591283
Godstud wrote:Libertarians want it so you only pay what you use, until the firemen come to put out their fire, or they have to call the police at 2 AM about neighours, or use the roads, the sidewalks, the sewage systems, the hospitals, bridges... in short the entire infrastructure that is built and maintained by taxes.

But no, taxes are theft...

I have heard this argument many times before and I have always found it to be very weak.
#14591329
Nunt wrote:I have heard this argument many times before and I have always found it to be very weak.


It is, because it presumes that infrastructure could not exist without taxes. As if a company would build a factory or a store and then stand around wondering how all the people were going to get there, because nobody would build a road. It takes about two seconds of thought to see how silly it is.

Imagine that shoes had always been made by government, for whatever reason. People would then argue that everybody would be barefoot if gov't suddenly stopped making them, as if no private entity could possibly make shoes.
#14591332
Libertarianism is an inherently selfish ideology.

joe liberty wrote:Imagine that shoes had always been made by government, for whatever reason. People would then argue that everybody would be barefoot if gov't suddenly stopped making them, as if no private entity could possibly make shoes.
No. Retarded analogy.

A better analogy would be there not being many sidewalks because most people drive and don't want to pay for them. A great deal of infrastructure would not exist if people had a choice in the matter, and that's simply fact. We're not talking about an individual buying stupid fucking shoes.
#14591335
In Lolbertarianland, people who are down and out will be able to rely on the charity of others and not the evil, corrupt government. Currently there are countless people who are in the depths of poverty for whom their communities care nothing about. But have no fear, once the government is gone, all of these problems will suddenly be solved and be even better, all of a sudden, even though alternatives to welfare and the like are inadequate and with little motivation, because magic. Also, because history, since as we all know, before governments provided forms of social welfare, people lived way better and in far better conditions, because of freedom things.

Also, in Lolbertarianland, getting rid of the government and allowing people with money and a monopoly on productive forces will mean, somehow, power and wealth will not accumulate into fewer hands more rapidly than with forms of regulated capitalism, because magic also. History does not show time and again that people and groups motivated solely by profit generally will do everything and anything possible to treat laborers like slaves, are above child labor, will lower wages as low as possible, will invest as little as possible into safe working conditions, and will certainly all work together in a spirit of freedom and liberty and not exploit everyone as much as possible.
#14591461
quetzalcoatl wrote:You can legislate people into prosperity (a certain level of development must already be in place).

I don't think so. Assuming you mean the right laws can make a society prosperous, there are a couple of other conditions that must be met: those laws have to be enforced without too much interference or partiality by corrupt officials; and the people have to be ready to understand and conform to them.
And you can legislate them right back out again.

That is certainly true. The societies impoverished by foolish laws are legion.
Socialism is about legislating people into prosperity,

That will be news to the Venezuelans...

... and everyone else who has ever lived in a socialist country.
and libertarianism is all about legislating them back out.

No. The two societies that routinely top lists of the freest economies -- HK and Singapore -- are also two of the most prosperous.
This is its only purpose; talk about freedom and individualism is intended to dupe their cadres.

I agree that libertarianism is often a cover for neo-feudalism, which is why I call it feudal libertarianism. But geolibertarianism is not in that category.
Nunt wrote:I have heard this argument many times before and I have always found it to be very weak.

Joe Liberty wrote:It is, because it presumes that infrastructure could not exist without taxes.

Which history proves is correct.
As if a company would build a factory or a store and then stand around wondering how all the people were going to get there, because nobody would build a road.

Ah, no. They wouldn't build the factory or store in the first place without a road there, because they know very well -- as you apparently do not -- that without a road, no one would be able to get there.
It takes about two seconds of thought to see how silly it is.

Prediction: you are now going to say something silly. Observe:
Imagine that shoes had always been made by government, for whatever reason. People would then argue that everybody would be barefoot if gov't suddenly stopped making them, as if no private entity could possibly make shoes.

See? You pretend all goods are like shoes, and just ignore the problems of market failure and public goods which do not apply to things like shoes.

Shoes don't benefit anyone but the person using them, who thus has the full, accurate incentive to pay someone to make them. Roads, by contrast, don't benefit anyone but landowners (everyone else must pay a landowner full market value for access to the road); but as there is no way to tell exactly how much a given road benefits each landowner, they will all try to get someone else to pay for it on one pretext or another. That's why no significant roadway that extends outside a given landowner's domain has ever, in the whole history of the world, been built profitably without support from taxes and/or government favors like land grants.
Bulaba Jones wrote:Also, in Lolbertarianland, getting rid of the government and allowing people with money and a monopoly on productive forces

"Productive forces"? You must mean land, labor, and capital. But how would anyone get a monopoly on those productive forces without government favors? You can't stop people from offering their labor in return for wages unless government stops them. You can't stop people from producing their own capital unless government stops them. And you can't stop people from using land (i.e., natural resources) unless government -- or something acting like a government -- stops them by assigning the land as someone's private domain.
will mean, somehow, power and wealth will not accumulate into fewer hands more rapidly than with forms of regulated capitalism, because magic also.

Power and wealth accumulate in fewer hands because governments privilege certain parties -- especially landowners -- to take the wealth others produce, in return for nothing.
History does not show time and again that people and groups motivated solely by profit generally will do everything and anything possible to treat laborers like slaves, are above child labor, will lower wages as low as possible, will invest as little as possible into safe working conditions, and will certainly all work together in a spirit of freedom and liberty and not exploit everyone as much as possible.

It is only government favor to the privileged that enables them to behave that way.
#14592376
Bulaba Jones wrote:In Lolbertarianland, people who are down and out will be able to rely on the charity of others and not the evil, corrupt government. Currently there are countless people who are in the depths of poverty for whom their communities care nothing about. But have no fear, once the government is gone, all of these problems will suddenly be solved and be even better, all of a sudden, even though alternatives to welfare and the like are inadequate and with little motivation, because magic. Also, because history, since as we all know, before governments provided forms of social welfare, people lived way better and in far better conditions, because of freedom things.

Also, in Lolbertarianland, getting rid of the government and allowing people with money and a monopoly on productive forces will mean, somehow, power and wealth will not accumulate into fewer hands more rapidly than with forms of regulated capitalism, because magic also. History does not show time and again that people and groups motivated solely by profit generally will do everything and anything possible to treat laborers like slaves, are above child labor, will lower wages as low as possible, will invest as little as possible into safe working conditions, and will certainly all work together in a spirit of freedom and liberty and not exploit everyone as much as possible.



When people make a comparison between government and no government, they always seem to envision government as a wealthy social democracy instead of the cruel, corrupt dictatorships that have been the norm for governments for centuries and still are today.
#14592450
Nunt wrote:When people make a comparison between government and no government, they always seem to envision government as a wealthy social democracy instead of the cruel, corrupt dictatorships that have been the norm for governments for centuries and still are today.

Because government is like food: it can be good or bad for you, and it is difficult to say exactly what would be best, or if one thing is better than another; but we can say in general what good and bad government are, and like food, a government has to be very bad indeed to be worse than none at all.
#14592562
mikema63 wrote:No, government is evil, because all governments automatically turn into dictatorships because magic.


That wasn't my point. Only that people seem to compare the best possible government (wealthy country, educated citizens, long term tradition with democracy) with the an anarchy in a dirt poor African country. This is a faulty comparison. If you would try to install a government in that dirt poor African country, it wouldn't be a very good government. Conversly, if you would install an anarchy in a wealthy country with educated citizens and a long term tradition with democracy, the results would be much better. One needs to take into account the whole picture when comparing societies.
#14592802
Nunt wrote:That wasn't my point. Only that people seem to compare the best possible government (wealthy country, educated citizens, long term tradition with democracy) with the an anarchy in a dirt poor African country. This is a faulty comparison. If you would try to install a government in that dirt poor African country, it wouldn't be a very good government.

Botswana is pretty well governed, despite enormous challenges.
Conversly, if you would install an anarchy in a wealthy country with educated citizens and a long term tradition with democracy, the results would be much better.

Maybe. So far, no wealthy, educated citizenry of a democratic country has been stupid enough to try it.
One needs to take into account the whole picture when comparing societies.

Right.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] Are you[…]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]