The only way for libertarianism to work is if every human had only good intentions. Since that’s simply never going to happen libertarianism will never work. Just my opinion feel free to disagree.
Libertarianism is a theory espoused to those with good intentions by people that have bad intentions.
It doesn’t work for almost anyone. But it super works for some. That’s the point.
It doesn’t work for almost anyone
You don’t believe that upholding, and maximising individual rights, and freedoms is a net positive?
You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.
Everyone loves freedom! Like the freedom to:
- pay a child to work in a mine
- schedule workers for 80+ hours a week
- drive without speed limits
- use as much water out of the local river as desired
- dump waste into that same river
- sell unregulated, untested medicine
So obviously there are “freedoms” that mainly serve to infringe on the actual freedoms of others. Those just happen to be the ones that libertarians don’t talk about so much but are really what they’re after.
You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.
I apologize, I neglected to write a specific part of my comment that ties in its intent. When I said “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms”, I did not mean to infer “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms at the expense of another”. The limit to the maximization of rights and freedoms is that they cannot infringe on the rights and freedoms of another. This was my mistake. I apologize for this confusion.
pay a child to work in a mine
I don’t believe in child labor. I believe that a child is not capable of giving consent. I believe that a civilized, and free society is dependent on the ability of one to give consent. Exploitation arises out of inability to give consent.
schedule workers for 80+ hours a week
If one consents, then there should be no issue.
drive without speed limits
Speed limits, and public roads are an interesting issue for sure. They are actually rather complicated issues to tackle. That being said, specifically for speed limits, I would argue that they are justified as an individual driving dangerously fast is recklessly endangering the lives of those around them – this would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.
use as much water out of the local river as desired
This is also a difficult issue to tackle. I think this is where Georgism typically comes in. I am inclined to say that one cannot freely take water from a river for the same reason that one cannot freely emit pollution. That being said, in terms of tort law, it would probably be easier to make a claim against a polluter than one taking water from a river. Perhaps a limit could be imposed on the exploitation of a natural resource through a tax (this, I think, is in line with an argument that a Georgist would make).
dump waste into that same river
This would be pollution, and could be handled through tort law, and other environmental protection laws.
sell unregulated, untested medicine
I generally see no issue with this. One cannot willfully endanger the public without repercussions. I suppose the argument could then be should it be preventative, or remedial. That being said, the FDA, for example, does not only mandate a drugs safety, they also mandate it’s efficacy. There is an enormous difference between mandating a drug’s efficacy vs. mandating it’s safety.
[source] Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1962 to require that new drugs be shown effective, as well as safe, to obtain FDA approval.
I appreciate your thorough response, but I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.
But also. No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.
And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin. Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?
I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.
Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term “maximization” is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.
No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.
When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one’s expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One’s ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,
And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin.
In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling “junk” medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it’s efficacy.
Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?
Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn’t care about it’s own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One’s ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn’t mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.
The problem is that it doesn’t work even if everyone has good intentions. It needs everyone to agree on what “good intentions” even means.
I think you are possibly confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism does not make the argument that the state is well functioning without a central authoritative mediating body – I point you to the model of a Nightwatchman State.
Also there’s the fact that nearly everybody’s idea of freedom is drastically different and some people’s freedoms infringe on others.
Also there’s the fact that nearly everybody’s idea of freedom is drastically different
Libertarianism seeks to maximise freedom.
some people’s freedoms infringe on others.
Libertarianism does not, in any way, shape, or form, advocate the idea that one is able infringe on the rights, and freedoms of another without their consent. One should not be allowed to impart a cost on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.
What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?
Who’s freedoms do you infringe so the other one can have theirs?
What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?
These sorts of issues are examples of where we must accept that we live in an imperfect world, and, as such, we must make compromises. I completely agree that one should not be allowed to freely emit noise pollution, as it directly affects the livelihoods of all who are within earshot – imparting a psychological cost, one could say. It is not realistic to say that everyone must be completely quiet unless all parties affected have given their consent, and as such, we make reasonable limits based on context as to the amount of noise pollution that we can generate. These limits are most commonly implemented as municipal noise pollution bylaws.
One day day when you’re older, you’ll understand why that’ll never work.
You do realize that virtually every municipality in existence has noise bylaws, right?
I stand by what I’ve been saying.
Do you know hitting that disagree button is trying to silence my free speech?
I personally don’t fully agree. Libertarianism just doesn’t work at all. It is not even a complete system from a logical sense. It falls apart when faced with basic scrutiny, or they just theorize a system that’s basically the same as a central government but with a private entity name stamped on it.
It is an ideology stemming from a basic principle, but they sadly don’t seem to think of the entire system as a whole.
hey just theorize a system that’s basically the same as a central government but with a private entity name stamped on it.
I don’t believe that any informed libertarian would advocate for a corporatocracy.
Libertarianism just doesn’t work at all. It is not even a complete system from a logical sense. It falls apart when faced with basic scrutiny
Would you be able to give some specific examples to back up your claim?
I’d be happy to tackle this with you, but just to avoid the frequent “actually, this isn’t libertarianism, this is the other X system”, can you please define libertarianism from your perspective?
I view libertarianism as the marriage between liberalism, and minarchy. A libertarian would seek to equally maximise the rights and freedoms of the individual, and to minimize the size of the state.
My issue with this definition is how vague it is.
You first start by talking about marrying liberalism and minarchism. I assumed you meant that as an intro and less as a definition, but if you meant it as a definition, I would need to understand: what of liberalism and what of minarchy are you taking? Should I just take the Wikipedia definition and trust that you’ll follow it?
You then said maximizing rights and freedoms of the individual, and minimize the size of the state.
The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough? Some see States in modern Western nations as small, not intervening as much in personal matters compared to the 3rd world, and they offer many freedoms in comparison. But some view them as too big. If you left that up to the reader to decide, then some will call the US small enough, at least in its internal politics.
And then which rights are necessary? Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school. Is the right to hate speech required? Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required? Who even decides and enforces that?
My issue with this definition is how vague it is.
This is somewhat intentional. One should note that Libertarianism is not perfectly monolithic in its ideology – in that it does not outline a regimented doctrine which must be adhered to for one to have the privilege of calling themself a libertarian. Instead, I would argue that it outlines a set of shared values being that one recognizes the importance of the state, but also possesses the goal to minimize it to the extent that is realistically attainable, and also that one possesses the desire to equally maximize the rights and freedoms of themself, as well as their fellow citizenry. You will find no exact agreement between libertarians on many precise social issues. What you will instead find is a set of common shared ideals with which they base their opinions.
what of liberalism
Liberalism, I would say, is where libertarianism inherits its desire for freedom. It outlines the philosophy that an individual should fundamentally posses a set of inalienable rights, e.g. right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, equality before the law, consent of the governed, right to the private ownership of property, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but to instead give an outline to how I define liberalism.
what of minarchy
Minarchy, loosely speaking, is the desire to have a small state. Fundamentally, libertarianism will have the common denominator of a “Nightwatchmen State” in that the state should provide, at the very least, national protection through the military, and the enforcement of personal, and property rights through a police force and the judicial system.
The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough?
I would argue that the minimization of the state is not necessarily a destination, but, instead, it is an aspiration. While you could say that “small enough” could be a pure Nightwatchmen State, I am very hesitant to do so, as it would be to assert that this is the ultimate, and perfect form of a minimal state, which I feel would be an arrogant statement to make.
And then which rights are necessary?
Answering this with precision, and confidence carries the same sort of issues as that of answering “how small of a state is enough”? The world is unfortunately not perfect enough to be able to create such exact, and precise rules. We instead must state guidelines, frameworks, and principles from which we base our opinions, and legislation – we set our baseline, and determine on a case-by-case basis how laws fit in. One should be granted the rights to guarantee them maximal amount of freedom as can be realistically given so long as it does not infringe on the rights, and freedoms of others.
Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school.
The right to freedom of religion is not the assertion that one must practice a religion, but freely have the choice between them. It is the right to choose to practice a religion. I’m not well acquainted with the laws, and politics of France, but to ban one’s religious wear is to infringe on their free practice of their religion.
Is the right to hate speech required?
I would encourage you to define that. I challenge you to come up with a definition that is not based in personal opinion. One should not have the right to not be offended.
Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required?
These sorts of specific cases are usually left up to municipal bylaw, and tort law. A libertarian argument could be that no one should infringe on one’s private enjoyment their life without their consent. If one incurred damages for such non-consensual infringements, they should be properly compensated.
Who even decides and enforces that?
Tort law is typically enforced by civil courts.
Why do you say this? There would exist a justice system to protect individual, and property rights through tort law, just as there is now.
I disagree with you.
You’re wrong.
Its like when someone uses human greed as a reason Communism wont work.
Funny how that someone is often the same who assumes humanity is flawless when libertarianism! Could it be that those people are just greedy and selfish hypocrites? Nah!
They’re pretty much similarly utopian but the neat thing is we can work towards both at the same time.
Which is a very uninformed (or intentionally misleading) thing to say, because Communism from it’s very beginning has always assumed that there are bad actors and always will be, hence the whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing.
That’s, to put it mildly, not what that phrase means.
What do you mean?
The idea (in theory) was that once the proleteriat seizes power, they would act akin to a dictator in ancient Rome, who would be given the extraordinary powers to handle extraordinary circumstances (such as, in this case, the (re)construction of society). It’s not implying totalitarian rule.
deleted by creator
Communism wont work because it will never be implemented. If a country ever implements true communism it will experience extreme brain drain and be left with only the most unskilled people.
If a country ever implements true communism it will experience extreme brain drain and be left with only the most unskilled people.
I’m not sure where you got this idea from. I’m not particularly informed on the subject, but when I look up the dictionary definition of communism, I get this:
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Emphasis mine. If people with more ability are paid more, then they shouldn’t be flocking out of the country, right?
I believe you may be misinterpereting “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. It’s not about giving those with more ability more than those with less ability but instead to redistribute the fruits of labour, generated by those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
Why even work hard if you cant spend the money to own something/start a business. What will you spend the money on? The good of humanity? Get out of of here with that bullshit. If my country inplements communism im leaving on a first plane to a place where my skills will benefit me.
My understanding, however limited, is that “property” means something different in this context. Essentially, it means things like real estate and businesses, things that make money. You can own food, clothes, a TV, watches, a car, whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t make money.
If you wanted to start a business, you probably could, and you wouldn’t need to pay for it. The State would own the business, and you would be paid to run that business. This absolves you of all the risk associated with it, and you get paid more than a grocery store shelf stocker because you’re doing a harder job, and thus demonstrating greater ability.
I hear Dubai is looking for day laborers! Im sure the lack of regulations make it a great place for workers!
“Communism won’t work because I only work for selfish gain so everyone else must be the same as me. Anyone who says they’d work for non-selfish reasons must be lying because I’m selfish and everyone else must be just like me. And if they set up a society where selfishness wasn’t the main motivator, I’d be out of there to go where I could still be selfish. Therefore communism is bullshit.”
Communist societies have had their problems but this has never been a good argument.
cant spend the money to own something/start a business.
Of course you can. Why would you assume otherwise?
Oh, I see now…
By “own something”, you mean private property, don’t you? The freedom to extract rent is important to you, I’m guessing?
And by “start a business”, what you mean is “exploit people for profit”, am I right?
It’s ok comrade. Uninformed peoole often says so, but the braindrain in communism has been accouted for. A bit of a barbed wire, some dogs, a few guys with daddy issues and a gun will stop any brains crossing the border. /s
Would you mind outlining why you say that?
Libertarianism also works if there is information about bad people and good people are free to avoid them.
Freedom of information and freedom of action.
It’s easier to avoid bad people in free markets than it is to prevent them from taking and abusing positions of power in a powerful state.
Except freedom of information and freedom of action are two of the first things to die without regulation. Company towns and crooked newspapers are hallmarks of low-regulation.
It’s easier to vote bad people out of positions of power in a powerful state than it is to prevent them from abusing executive roles in powerful conglomerates.
Is it still libertarianism if those freedoms don’t exist anymore? I don’t think libertarians argue for no regulations.
Regarding the bad people, the trick is that bad people don’t look bad, much like captured markets offer the illusion of choice. So it’s difficult to vote them out.
The thing is that we argue different moments in development. You compare the correction of the corrupted states whereas I was talking about maintaining the functioning states.
It’s strictly speaking not libertarian, but libertarianism is a left wing ideology and the post is clearly referring to the right wing self-ascribed “libertarians” who do in fact argue against regulations roughly indiscriminately…
I never said it’s easy to vote them out, I said it’s easier than holding corrupt private executives accountable, for the same captured market illusion of choice reasons.
Don’t understand what you’re trying to say in the last part, don’t think your assessment really reflects my goals, sorry.
Sorry for the wrong assessment.
There can be rough “libertarians” but I think most don’t want to dismantle a libertarian state but instead want to create one. A lost opportunity where left and right could meet.
To me, the meme is not clearly right wing because the clown looks like the joker.
Let me shift the last part a bit. Corrupt executives are expected. That’s why freedom is important so that nobody is locked in with them. The same cannot be said for civil servants. As long as a party covers important topics, it can be corrupt in many other areas and voters cannot change anything.
I just don’t see the distinction. Without a government with actual regulatory teeth, those corrupt executives are just as liable to lock people in. Dismantling state power just gives those executives more opportunities to abuse their power. You can’t reduce government and expect private interests to not fill the vacuum. The concept that private executives with no voter accountability would be less corrupt than politicians is wholly ridiculous.
Those executives can also use the state for abuse. It’s easier to get tax money with one government contract than having to sell something to all citizens. Or remember those epi pens. Regulations can be used to massively increase profits.
The point of free markets is that executives can be corrupt. Instead of voting every 5 years, customers can immediately react and buy somewhere else.
You may be right that private interests don’t immediately fill up a government vacuum. With the internet, times may have changed and it could be easy for citizens to coordinate.
Love your praying with that last sentence.
Respectfully, I think the opposite. I think, for the most part, a free® market naturally benefits humans with good intentions and harms those with bad intentions.
For example, let’s say in a free market, somebody wanted to start a business with horrible working conditions, horrible salary, horrible everything. Now, if the economy is real bad then people might work there, but for the most part, that business is going to fail because people won’t work there, and would choose other jobs instead. So in this case, a free market actually incentivizes “good intentions”. The business owner will have to improve work conditions, salary, etc. so that people will work there instead of elsewhere.
And one of the important aspects of a free market is the ability to start a competing business. If there was a company with overall poor working conditions and salary, it would highly incentivize someone to start a new company with better conditions, because they could pull in all the workers from the other company.
And look, I’m not saying this is fool proof and works 100% of the time, and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a healthy amount of regulation. But if you compare this to an economic system where businesses are run by the government, you can simply just be stuck with shitty work conditions and shitty salary, and not be able to do anything about it.
That’s fine to disagree. I used to believe this back when I took Econ classes in college, every Econ professor is a libertarian lmao. I just don’t think a free market would punish bad actors. Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap
free market would punish bad actors
The free market punishing bad actors (depending on how we are defining bad actors) is inherently dependent on the morals of the consumer.
Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap
The question would then become: “Whose morals are truly virtuous?”.
That only works when worker are less replaceable and desperate. Their are a lots of open job positions today but most pay less than the cost of living.
Lots of open job positions is very healthy for the economy, it gives the worker the ability to choose, and it makes companies have to compete. A ton of companies are literally being forced to increase their wages in order to get enough employees.
I’m not saying it’s unhealthly I am just saying they don’t help if they don’t pay above the cost of living. Sure you can get a job paying 15 USD but that isn’t even going to cover rent + utilities. So for now your stuck with your job and don’t have the option to switch.
My concern is that “bad product” to the consumer is mostly a matter of price and quality; environmental impact, legality, and even employee safety rank much lower with the average person as far as choosing where to spend their money. Companies can and do operate for years on the suffering of the lower class in particular, often openly doing so, and still make oodles of money.
Firstly, I think it completely aligns with libertarian principles to regulate environmental impact. If a company pollutes the airs and rivers, that physical affects everybody.
Secondly, yeah, it is sad that many consumers will turn a blind eye to poor working conditions and environmental impact … but I do think there is a limit. And honestly, most of the big companies in our nation are making some attempt to improve environmental conditions, probably because they know that some people will stop buying their product if they don’t. It’s not a lot, but I think the fact that it’s happening at all is some proof that companies can certainly be pressured into doing the right thing without legislation.
What I like about the free-ish markets is that it at least gives you a personal choice. If you don’t want to support a business, you don’t have to. It sucks if other people support it, but let’s be honest, if like 50% of the country wants to support a business that you don’t like, then what can you expect?
What I like about the free-ish markets
Pehaps, you may benefit from the term “competitive free market”.
It’s just like socialism; great concept, but impossible to perfectly implement. That said, I’d still prefer a system where I maintain independence and freedom than any alternative since humans are inherently are own largest problems.
I’d prefer a system similar to what we have in germany right now as it is a mix of socialism and capitalism in a way that reduces the exploitation that free market capitalism brings. Complete freedom in market almost always leads to exploitation which is terrible
How exactly does Germany reduce exploitation from capitalism? Is it labor laws? I would like to remind you that having social programs and laws that benefit the working class is not socialism.
Maybe saying socialist is an overstatement i just think that our current system is a step in the right direction as there are laws in place to reduce exploitation and improve the situation for workers. It is still very flawed and i think it could be better but there are many places where it is bad, the US for example
What, specifically, are you meaning when you use the term “capitalism”? There is a difference, for example, between an anarcho-capitalist, or fundamentally free market, and a competitive free market. One is alright with the existance of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour, and the other is not.
It’s just like socialism; great concept, but impossible to perfectly implement
Would you mind defining “impossible to perfectly implement”? I don’t want to draw conclusions based on interperetations of that statement.
That’s where operating it using Algocracy comes in.
Yeah the main lesson I’ve taken away from the last decade of cryptocurrency instability, NFTs, and things like algorithmically generated judicial sentencing guidelines that perpetuated the existing racial biases while making them seem more legitimate because “the computer can’t be wrong” is that we should run our whole society with them.
Sure.
Algocracy uses algorithms to inform societal decisions, while Blockchain is a transparent, decentralized ledger system. People often confuse cryptocurrencies with the underlying Blockchain technology, even though they serve different purposes.
Comparing the challenges of Algocracy to the volatility of cryptocurrencies is like assessing the potential of online commerce based on early internet connectivity issues.
Biases in Algocracy are the result of poor design. With meticulous design and continuous oversight, the potential of Algocracy can be fully realized.
Biases in Algocracy are the result of poor design.
You can’t design a neutral algorithm. The algorithm has to be designed to optimize something. What that thing is is a political and philosophical decision. Government by algorithm is indirect government by whoever’s values shaped the design of the algorithm.
Algorithms can no doubt assist in regulating systems but they don’t resolve any of the deeper political issues about values, goals and what constitutes improvement.
Of course, tech bros will claim they can sell you a neutral algorithm that will run things better than people, but that’s just because tech bros’ political philosophy is basically “just do it my way because obviously I’m smarter than you.” They won’t even notice how their algorithms are biased, because they’re not even interested in that question.
Yeah I might have oversimplified about ten steps there.
It’s an iterative process.
Tech bros 4 life.
they tryna put the government on Web3.0 crying laughing emoji skull emoji
Surely that citydao wasn’t created by someone with profit motives and not aware that in a few years it will be another worthless and abandoned NFT-bullshit.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Sure. I don’t think anybody is arguing that there is any country that couldn’t give their regulations a once-over and improve things by removing a few counter-productive ones here and there.
That’s not what American style libertarians are actually arguing when they say they want deregulation though, is it?
That’s generally the type of thing libertarians get upset about. Or shit like floral licensing or cracking down on people braiding hair (this is generally black people, obviously) or the bazillion other types of regulatory capture. Farm subsidies and ethanol mandates/fuel subsidies are also a shitshow.
Exactly! Libertarians point to one regulation that isn’t working and push total deregulation. Why not just fix that one regulation? No, absolute deregulation is the only answer.
Exactly. It’s stupid to be like libertarians and take a hardline stance on “regulations always bad!!” or “regulations always good!!”. A regulation that bans building dense, walkable communities is bad and needs to be eliminated. Likewise, regulations that ban teachers from talking about the existence of gay people are also bad and need to be eliminated.
Just like we try to use regulations for good, many others use regulations for ill. It will always be context-specific specific whether we need more regulation or deregulation.
When actual libertarians get a chance to run a town, they don’t start by eliminating zoning laws. This is the kind of thing that happens instead.
Bears have a better libertarian ideology
I’m not surprised by the fact it did collapse, but i’m surprised that libertarians, of all people, did not try to solve the bear problem using extensive amounts of firepower.
It did mention that several times the town did form posses to go and cull the bears, but didn’t do enough because you also had people just feeding the shit out of them.
Let the bears pay the bear tax!
You talk as if benefiting the ruling class was an unwanted consequence of these laws. It’s not. The markets need to be free for the rich to benefit but restricted for the rich to benefit. And maybe some crumbs will fall of the table and the poors will think that the rich are so generous.
deleted by creator
“talk as if” and “literally said” are two wholly different things. They never said that, what are you talking about?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
So, you are agreeing with libertarians?
No, there should be rules to benefit the poor. But many of the laws now in effect in particular in the US are specifically not built for that. So many laws would better be dropped than enforced, and many are missing.
Why there should be rules to benefit the poor, as opposed minimalistic neutral rules beneficial to the whole society and safety net like UBI? (that what libertarian would argue)
I guess it’s a matter of semantics and if you’re an existing rich person, right? Cause from the perspective of the rich closing up those loop holes would be perceived as purely benefitting the poor.
For neutral rules to truly be neutral, you almost need to ensure there are services and programs to bring that opportunity to everyone, else it’s just appears more fair without actually increasing accessibility. Which to your point would be something like UBI.
That’s the irony.
But Density means communism to them so they’re suddenly fine with regulations and taxes that prop up an unsustainable suburban ponzi scheme because that’s the lie sold about the American Dream.
When they see how unaffordable housing has become they say, “good, my house is more expensive.”
The difference is that they think that gatekeeping poor people from services in order to bring costs down for everyone else is valid. I’ve seen libertarians argue that the solution to tuition and healthcare being expensive is to stop helping poor people, because that will drive demand down and lower prices for people who can already afford it. I’ve seen libertarians argue that the solution to people scalping groceries is to let grocery stores price gouge. Their solutions only ever involve helping people who don’t need help at the expense of people who do. Libertarianism is “me, me, me right now now now” dressed up in fancy language. It’s the political philosophy of a tumor.
Libertarianism is a great system if you’re using it as a backdrop for a cyberpunk dystopia.
It’s great if the concept of a conscience is disgusting to you and you’re proud of all the progress you made that was even partly because of the things you’re trying to get rid of
You won me over at cyberpunk.
“It’s the political philosophy of a tumor.” Fantastic analogy!
they advocate for genocide basically.
Yeah way too many people don’t recognize the methods of passive genocide as being such.
“We’re not going to put you in death camps per se; we’re just going to lock you out of every effective means of social and financial advancement, continually reduce the amount of money you’re able to make to feed yourself, and also refuse to feed, shelter, or clothe you. What’s the problem? It’s not like we’re putting you in death camps.”
If it helps at all, mostly it just hurts even those it’s supposed to help while the upper class reaps the rewards.
“We live in a society” - the jonkler
“Not if I can help it” - libertarians
**beef stroganoff starts
As far as I can tell, the ones with money want a free hand to do whatever they want to others without repercussion, and the ones without money are willfully drinking the Kool Aid and being led around by the nose philosophically.
So Republicans then.
I can’t tell the difference. 🤷
You ever hear a libertarian complain about flying? Fascinating one-person debate about airlines and deregulation.
Being Libertarian means never having to admit you’re a Republican
Libertarians are just Republicans that want to smoke weed.
Be fair. Some of them are republicans who are more open about not wanting age of consent to be a thing.
I really hate this sentiment because if you actually look into the libertarian party platform and their recent candidates, they are nothing like Republicans. LP has supported LGBTQ+ rights for decades, they support open borders, support social freedom, don’t like religion in govt, etc. I mean, the only real overlap between the LP and Republican party is like, guns. I know many people would argue that they have similar economic policies but they really don’t, all Republicans have done in the last twenty years is spend more money and specifically only remove the regulations that are actually useful.
But at the same time, whenever I meet someone who calls themselves a “libertarian”… yeah 90% of the time they are just edgy Republicans.
I’ve always said a Libertarian is a Republican who is trying to sleep with a Democrat. Vice versa works too.
Typically they argue the government is the cause of the problems (which is frequently correct) and the solution is to remove regulations that create the inefficiencies (which rarely goes to plan and frequently involves enriching them).
It’s clownish just for different reasons than the meme suggests.
Their solution to an inefficient fly swatter is to get rid of it, spread honey over every surface, and offer to sell their services as an exterminator.
What an incredible analogy
Government is only part of the problem. When they fail to see the ruling class behind it, they don’t get too far.
Most “libertarians” are this dumb, but the old school ones at least attribute the problems to uneven regulation rigged in favor of the ruling class, which does jive with my understanding of what is wrong with the financial system. That being said, libertarianism wouldn’t work even if they did get shit straight.
The vast majority of libertarians are (in my experience) just conservatives that want to smoke weed. They believe a lot of the same awful shit. The rest of them have deluded themselves into thinking that a libertarian society is viable when it is laughably not. They generally consider themselves to be way more capable and independent than reality can support.
Many years ago a bunch got together and essentially took over a town. Several years later the town got over ran by bears because no one wanted to handle trash properly.
deleted by creator
Waste management is a very difficult problem that the entire globe struggles with to be fair.
Not exactly the best example of why libertarians are doomed to fail but you’ve got the spirit
I understand and support your hesitation while disagreeing with the reasoning. Waste Management IS difficult, but it’s also a process that we as a society have pretty well figured out. It’s a pretty great example of why a libertarian approach doesn’t work. Since the libertarian credo is basically “fuck you, I got mine” things that no one wants to deal with like safe and effective waste management turn into burn pits and hazardous dump sites.
So even back in the early 90s when I dabbled in Libertarianism, people had a more nuanced take here, in that shared resources like water and air that crossed land boundaries would be protected by law. For instance you could do a class action lawsuit against the person damaging your air and water. But no one is that nuanced now.
I would kill for that ability man.
Everything is so complex
We have figured it out?
What country are you from btw? I wrote a whole paper on waste management as a Big Problem that the world faces and I just find it hard to believe that we just some how have a magical solution is rampant consumerism and consumption, not to mention ewaste.
Do we have stuff on paper? Yeah of course, but implemented effectively and consistently? Not so sure. Some pretty big fucking rats out here and they aren’t getting that size from hitting the gym. I’ll tell you that much.
I mean there is more to the story, essentially if you’ve seen wild wild country they did that where they become the majority then decided against public works
Unfortunately Libertarians suffer from the abject stupidity of “libertarians”
Very few of us have read Locke and Through and run on the ideals of the Non Aggression Principle but we do exist.
Simply stated if you’re arguing with a “libertarian” And their point of view would be an attack on another person or group or a trespass on another’s rights they’re probably not a libertarian.
The purpose of government is the monopoly of violence. Ideally this violence should only be used to protect rights and not violate them. Unfortunately it is often the case that government violates rights. Libertarians do not like that.
El libertarian society is a trust based society strengthened by voluntary engagement. In short you’re allowed to sell poison if you label it as poison but you’re not allowed to sell medicine that is actually poison.
Unironically Ron Swanson is a pretty apt description of accurate libertarian philosophy.
deleted by creator
Believing Libertarians argue in good faith. 🤡
Thats cause if they argue in good faith they wont be Libertarians for long.
How is it that free market’s modus operandi seem to be attempting suicide every few years?
It’s not free enough!!!
No joke, though, there are people who think that letting things hit the wall as fast and hard as possible is desirable. It’s called accelerationism.
I’m torn about this cause on one hand it would show the problems before they have a chance to set in, but on the other it would probably end in authoritarianism if it led to governmental collapse.
The accelerationists do tend to have quite an overlap with various flavours of authoritarianism. One has to wonder about their motives.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
We have never had a perfect version of anything but are we pursuing perfection or good enough?
You could say the same about abandoning capitalism for another type of economy wholesale.
The point is that there has always been regulation because when we have tried removing it (look up grain shortage in France during the mid to late 1700’s due to export deregulation) and it ends up the same. Deregulation isn’t the answer.
There is no “seeking perfect deregulation”, only the admittance that deregulation cannot be part of the perfect solution.
My point is the market has never been perfectly free but do we need it to be perfectly or just well regulated and mostly free?
Oh, well yeah I’d say that’s the best choice to move forward.
deleted by creator
i thought being a libertarian was cool when i was 20 and wanted to smoke weed but didn’t know how to get any
I’ve seen them claim that a natural monopoly cannot exist and that monopolies we see today are all enforced by government regulation.
It’s like they’ve never opened a history textbook.
Or played Assassin’s Creed 2, the fuckin philistines.
They are.
Explain
Well, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that a natural monopoly doesn’t exist, but I think it’s pretty clear that big companies have a lot of influence on the government, and typically can lobby the government to pass policies that benefit them, and make it harder for competition.
And I think there’s an argument to be made that if the government were less powerful, then there would be less potential harm done when a corporation is able to influence the government.
I’m personally torn on this, because on one hand I think the government can be a useful tool in preventing monopolies, but on the other hand, I think expecting the government to not always work in favor of big companies seems naive.
I kept reading that as librarian
I did too and was about to throw hands in defence of my local library
