|
Libertarians (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
do you mean they're intelligent yet retarded? |
from what i could gather, they're the smartest retards. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Noam Chomsky is a political scholar the same way I'm a philosopher :p |
:p |
|
|
| aquila |
| I like libertarians. They keep the books tidy. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Quazar
I think a lot of Libertarians are probably people who would be liberals, except they were raised under the idea that "liberal" means "lazy homo hippies" and can't subconsciously overcome that... or something. |
Libertarianism is just liberalism for privileged sociopaths. Try finding me a libertarian who isn't white, who wasn't born into a comfortable middle-class existence and who doesn't have an entirely misplaced sense of self-entitlement. It's poorly rationalised selfishness, there's really no substance to it beyond that.
| quote: | Originally posted by Quazar
A lot of people I know went through that in college, though. Most of them now like the idea of a party that is economically conservative, but socially liberal... |
I still don't quite understand what it means to describe yourself as "economically conservative". I mean, what economic norms would they like to conserve actually? Those of the 1980s? Of the 1960s? Of the 1920s? Of the 1850s? Our understanding of economics has evolved, so which era do they feel had it right? I'd very much like to revert back to a Keynesian economic model, where governmental intervention is taken as a necessity of sensible economic practice. Does that make me an "economic conservative" then? Of course not.
When people describe themselves as "economically conservative" what they really seem to mean is that they just want to see taxes reduced and social programs obliterated. There is nothing principled about this, and nothing that deserves a particular label. It's just myopic selfishness and naked spite - calling it "economic conservatism" lends it a degree of credibility it doesn't deserve.
| quote: | | but they also think it's ridiculous to try and remove the government from everything. |
The question of necessary governance is the one all libertarians trip themselves on. They begin with the principle of "minimal government" but, in practice (and after sufficient argument with them), they will have to concede one of two positions. The first (and most sensible) one is to admit that government is necessary, but that it shouldn't overstep its bounds. In this respect they agree with precisely 100% of humanity: government should not be any bigger than necessary. The more important question, that their simplistic outlook fails to address, is where exactly the limits of government should be drawn. This is a important and unsolved problem pertaining to every state and every economy, and the childish slogans of libertarianism contribute nothing to the debate. They simply imagine that anyone who is not a libertarian believes in an unrestricted expanse of governance, which is plainly at odds with reality. We all want "minimal" government, so let's sensibly discuss where, exactly, the boundaries of such a government might be drawn.
The alternative to this compromised position is to dig themselves further into their hole, and deny almost every necessary function of government. These are the kind of libertarians who believe - apparently sincerely - that the government has no role beyond the protection of property rights, and that if people die from starvation or disease that it is their own fault and that it not the responsibility of the society around them to prevent this from happening. I can only reiterate that such people are sociopaths, and should not be permitted to be in the same room as uncorked forks without adequate supervision.
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceArmstrong
Libertarian here checking in. Not opposed to a woman's right to remove her unborn baby nor am I in favor of widespread pollution, robber barons, or poor people dying because they can't afford healthcare. |
Congratulations on being human.
| quote: | | I just get a little jumpy when we start A. removing the price mechanism from particular sectors (interest rates, student loans, healthcare, real estate) of the economy |
It's a delusion of the highest order that the "free market" can sensibly determine "value". The vast and completely random shifts in value attributed to any number of goods should clue you in on that. In the "free market", value has nothing to do with utility or anything else tangible, but rather the random jitters inherent to any random system that are endlessly exacerbated (in a positive feedback loop) by speculators vainly searching for market patterns. Any number of studies have confirmed this: the market is irrational, and will lead us (as we have seen) to obscene peaks and troughs in the absence of any stabilising force. The idea of some equilibrium to which all markets tend is completely illusory.
So yes, when it comes to such socially essential outcomes as people getting an education ("student loans"), treatment for disease ("healthcare") or having a roof over their heads ("real estate"), I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't wish to leave their valuation entirely up to some free-market system where their true value (or "utility") is surrendered in favour of ultimately ephemeral corporate profits.
| quote: | | and B. start using the force and considerable influence of the government to prefer some classes of people (bankers, automakers, military/weapons producers, home owners, etc) over others. |
Well I actually appreciate this argument, because by dragging class into it you've just inadvertently made a Marxist argument. I'm no Marxist, incidentally, but at least you've given us some space to find a middle ground.
Yes, economic problems do arise when one class is politically favoured over other classes, so well done on articulating the chief problem that exists at the centre of all unregulated economies. The influence of government should not be used to privilege the wealthier classes over the poorer classes, and it's an economic truism that allowing the wealth of the upper classes to grow unencumbered leads to dire problems in the wider economy. Such an imbalance of wealth exists now that hasn't existed since - you might've guessed it - the time of just before the Great Depression. Allow obscenely wealthy people ("(bankers, automakers, military/weapons producers, home owners, etc)") to sit on their money in bad economic times and the bad economic times are exacerbated. I agree: the government shouldn't protect such people. Let's tax them fairly and put their money to good use.
| quote: | | It follows that if people are able to marry who they want and ingest whatever substances they want, the least they should be able to do is spend their money on what they want as well. |
Unless you're proposing a state of zero taxation, the cost of living in a democracy is subsidising things you don't directly benefit from. The pay-off is to enjoy things like parks, roads and so on that you haven't directly subsidised. You live in a society that protects your person, that offers you cheap and unencumbered access to your place of employment and that grants you certain inviolable rights. Such a privilege doesn't come for free, and if you want to opt out of such privileges then the tax-free libertopia of Somalia is there waiting for you. Absolute liberty sounds like a great idea until it's confronted with reality.
| quote: | | Not for too long though; I don't particularly envy what they've got going on there in Europe. |
Yes, we have it so terribly here with our universal health coverage and our living wages. If only we'd given more freedom to the banks and sacrificed more poor people to our volcano gods we might more closely resemble the economic utopia that is the USA. Thank you for opening my eyes. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| I really should apply for that job in the CZ. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
job |
lol |
|
|
| TranceArmstrong |
The sociopath is the one who places his trust in Keynes, not the Libertarians. I'm a free-marketer on practical grounds more so than moral grounds (I don't really have a moral issue with progressive taxation but the US government is simply terrible at spending money efficiently).
I'm not great at debates and don't really want to change your mind, rather just speak up against the straw-manning and the "YOU LIVE IN YOUR MOMS BASEMENT AND YOU'RE WHITE AND MIDDLE CLASS" that the rest of this thread is. You're not valuing the unseen consequences of government intervention in economic matters. Google "bastiat" or look up the history of sugar policy in the United States, particularly around the time the major soda companies switched from sugar to HCFS to get an idea of where our worldview comes from.
The "Go to Somalia" is very tired and roads and infrastructure could be privatized. If Europe's recent fiscal crises are the price to pay for the "living wages" and universal healthcare, don't you think there might be a better way?
Lastly, on the subject of living wages, in a society without inflation, the same amount of labor/work/wages should in theory provide a better and better standard of living every year. There's nothing libertarian about a central bank faced with the impossible task of both maintaing prices and encouraging growth (US FED). |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
big posts from arbiter AND renegade. best week ever!
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
|
its very rare that i find myself disagreeing with you substantially on anything, but i think you're giving libertarianism a rough trot in some respects. im a huge believer in practical political theory but at the same time recognise that practical action comes from previously theoretic wanking. and as such, i would put libertarianism alongside marxism insofar as they both offer an analysis or critique of capitalism/government/society etc.
so while i might distrust someone that claims to be a libertarian (certainly if they're an american), you've gotta give the "founding fathers" of liberal democracy a bit of credit imo (in as much as libertarianism = classical liberalism and yes i realise they can be a bit different).
anywayz, great to see you post james. i hope things with you are well! :) |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Renegade Any number of studies have confirmed this: the market is irrational, and will lead us (as we have seen) to obscene peaks and troughs in the absence of any stabilising force. The idea of some equilibrium to which all markets tend is completely illusory. |
A) Please provide a source for a study on this.
B) If the market is irrational, does that mean that the state is not irrational?
C) I assume your stabilizing force is the state. Are you saying that with one, we will never see obscene peaks and troughs? You know, like the one that we just went through in the last decade.
D) In regards to "equilibrium"; say you are selling apples and people want to buy them and both agree on a price; what would you call that? Let's say the state comes in and changes that price and forces you to sell it for this new price; what would you call that?
I look forward to your answers! :) |
|
|
| TranceArmstrong |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
B) If the market is irrational, does that mean that the state is not irrational?
|
Why should we assume that government officials are any less self-interested than private individuals, especially when the door between the two sectors is constantly revolving? |
|
|
| zyklon-jay |
 |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
I almost want libertarians to win... it'd be so ing amazing how ed this country would be.
I bought some old BDUs today and some nice combat gloves, I got my gas mask, and I am getting a rifle, so I say let the retards win. I am ready to fight them on my land.
WILD WILD WEST. |
|
|
|
|
