OSSR: John Wick's Libertarian Fantasy Utopia

[ArmorClassZero]

@Dean: I'm not aware of any grand ideology or thought experiments, but if you're asking a Libertarian a question and can't get an answer, or he fumbles one out, it's maybe because he forgot the first principles and/or never really understood them to begin with.

"The immediate example that occurs to me is when they go on about minimum wage and how Sally can generate $30 worth of benefit to an employer per hour but Bob can only generate $5. And that by making a $10 minimum wage you are removing Bob's ability to be employed. That sounds like an ok argument if you have literally no filter on incoming information or follow up questions like "Wouldn't Bob have become homeless and died on a $4 an hour job? Isn't removing a position that would kill people good?""

And here you illustrate the fundamental difference in perspective that Leftists/Progressives/Liberals have vs Libertarians. The real critical thinking question to ask is: "Why is the Govt dictating how much an employer must pay an employee?" Presumably the two consenting parties could reach an agreement about what the one's skill, time, and labor is worth to the other like adults, without the need of a third party's imperial decree.

You have to realize, everything a Govt legislates produces an incentive or disincentive. If you mandate that companies do X, (and thus make it illegal for them NOT do X or to try some alternative to X) you reorient and change the incentive structure going forward. If Bob isn't worth 10$ an hour to the company, then they'll either let him go (making 0$ is worse than making 4-5$ an hour, no?) or they'll be charitable and eat the loss, which ultimately hurts their bottom line, which gets us into the Broken Window Fallacy, but that's another story.

"Also that their belief system fundamentally requires a belief in magic or magical beings and most won't even acknowledge that."

Explain this.

[Libertad]

Not all companies are rational actors, and if they can get away with paying people less than they're worth then they'll do so. It's part of why so many companies hire immigrants from war-torn and poverty-stricken nations, and can threaten them with deportation if they try to bargain or argue for increased pay union-style. Many politicians are in the pocket of big business, and ICE is more concerned with going after poor immigrants than the business owners and managers which hire them, so businesses with no moral scruples can and do get away with paying people below what their labor's worth.

But I realize that I already made a post in this thread before which was a bit wordy, so I'll now refrain from dogpile posting to let you get up to speed.

[Username17]

Nope. Not sure where you got this 'fact' from, but the Law, relegated to its proper purpose and sphere, applies to everyone equally.

Sure dude.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

Libertarians constantly claim that they are being strawmanned because people crush their arguments so easily. But the reason people crush Libertarian arguments so easily is that Libertarian arguments genuinely are that weak. We aren't cherry picking bad arguments to laugh at, or restating arguments as worse and weaker, the entire corpus of Libertarian thought is simply a cardboard fortress unable to withstand the assault of "How does such a society function for those who cannot already count upon the protections of privilege?" And that's not a particularly difficult argument to make.

On your property, you are absolutely free to refuse to serve black people, or any other race, creed, ethnicity, or whatever. Don't want handicapped people in your establishment? You're free to refuse service. But what this means is that those people will take their business elsewhere - you will lose out on their $ and your business may develop the reputation of being intolerant or hyper-exclusive, and so your business may suffer even more.

The Libertarian argument against civil rights legislation is comically bad, since even committed Libertarians will generally agree that we are collectively worse off in a segregated society than in an inclusive one. And you know, it's just obviously historically true the pure carrot approaches are not and have never been sufficient to banish injustices of that nature from our lands. And yet, here AC0 is, rehashing that same tired bullshit in defense of segregated lunch counters.

But it goes beyond that. Not only is he arguing for an outcome that he admits is bad, but the underlying assumptions are absurd. It isn't just that you might get less dollar bills in your bank account by excluding certain customers or that people might organize boycotts of your business because they hate your hatefulness - it's that dollar bills aren't inherently a thing of value. The statement "all debts public and private" isn't just empty words, that's both a promise and a threat backed up by force of arms. The only reason the "$" is interchangeable with wealth and profit is that the government guarantees that. Society has an interest in forcing you to accept dollars in exchange for goods and services because if you don't there's no money to have more or less of.

Neither green pieces of paper nor blobs of yellow metal have any inherent value. Such things have value because society says they have value. Assuming you value having an economy at all, rebellions such as "Your money is no good here" are just as much a rebellion as "I don't recognize your ownership of [thing]" or "Your decision to not have sex with me is not valid."

-Username17

[MGuy]

The idea that two consenting parties in the imagined libertarian world would even meet on terms that would allow both parties to be able to come to a mutual agreement about the value of one's labor is a fantasy. It doesn't account for externalities like having to eat, rent-seeking, monopolies, etc etc. It imagines that all workers will be able to interact with markets in ways that don't reflect reality. This isn't even up for debate. We have a capitalist market and we can see how things just don't work well, especially with disparities between wealth an resources.

[ArmorClassZero]

"Not all companies are rational actors, and if they can get away with paying people less than they're worth then they'll do so."It's part of why so many companies hire immigrants from war-torn and poverty-stricken nations, and can threaten them with deportation if they try to bargain or argue for increased pay union-style. Many politicians are in the pocket of big business, and ICE is more concerned with going after poor immigrants than the business owners and managers which hire them, so businesses with no moral scruples can and do get away with paying people below what their labor's worth."

Two things immediately spring to mind: 1) It is entirely rational for a company or employer who is looking to maximize profits to try to pay workers as little as possible (among other things, like maximizing efficiency and cutting costs by using time- and labor-saving technologies.) By the same token, it's entirely rational for workers to seek employment where they will be highly paid, or receive the best benefits or retirement plans, etc. 2) You suggest that the businesses are "getting away with" paying people below what their labor is worth. But here's the thing: no one is forcing those immigrants to work for 4$ an hour and the immigrants are willing to work for that amount. It is a mutual consenting agreement between two parties. In fact, that's why they come here: they agree to work for less than minimum wage, be paid in cash (thus avoiding the income tax most Americans and businesses pay), and despite earning so little, they've still earned 20x per 1$ what they would have made for the same work in Mexico (assuming they're Mexican.)

@MGuy:

"The idea that two consenting parties in the imagined libertarian world would even meet on terms that would allow both parties to be able to come to a mutual agreement about the value of one's labor is a fantasy. It doesn't account for externalities like having to eat, rent-seeking, monopolies, etc etc. It imagines that all workers will be able to interact with markets in ways that don't reflect reality. This isn't even up for debate. We have a capitalist market and we can see how things just don't work well, especially with disparities between wealth an resources."

It happens all the time in this reality. If you agree to work at McDonald's for 8$ an hour, then you've agreed that your labor is worth 8$ an hour. If you think your labor at McDonald's is worth 30$ an hour, and McDonald's disagrees, then you can negotiate to reach whatever $/hour you both agree is fair, or you agree to go your separate ways: you will seek an employer that values your labor to the extent you do, and McDonald's will seek an employee who agrees to work for a price they're willing to pay. But it's funny you say we have a capitalist market and "things just don't work well" but then go on to list rent-seeking and monopolies - two forms of businesses using the Govt apparatus for special exceptions and privileges. Are you for Govt intervention in the market, or against it? Most Libertarians would hold that the reason things "just don't work well" is because the Govt is not limited to its proper sphere and function, which brings me to...

Nope. Not sure where you got this 'fact' from, but the Law, relegated to its proper purpose and sphere, applies to everyone equally.

Sure dude.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

Frank flippantly dismisses my response because he doesn't understand it (which, to be fair, I left vague and undefined) and then gives me a witty rebuttal by a French poet and author, notably NOT an economist or economic thinker, and a self-described Socialist and Communist sympathizer at that. So let me explain myself by quoting a Frenchman whom I adore:

"The Law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [...] Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?"

But Frank goes on:

Libertarians constantly claim that they are being strawmanned because people crush their arguments so easily. But the reason people crush Libertarian arguments so easily is that Libertarian arguments genuinely are that weak. We aren't cherry picking bad arguments to laugh at, or restating arguments as worse and weaker, the entire corpus of Libertarian thought is simply a cardboard fortress unable to withstand the assault of "How does such a society function for those who cannot already count upon the protections of privilege?" And that's not a particularly difficult argument to make.

Notice the question intended to demolish the "cardboard fortress" of Libertarianism is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions. What "protections of privilege"? You mean money and wealth that was earned through hard-work and foresight and luck, either through an individual or his or her forebears and ancestors? How does a society function for those without said privileges and protections, you ask? How did any society function before the rise of the welfare state and social security blankets and social safety nets? People suffered. Yes, that's the truth. Life is hard, nature is merciless and she doesn't play favorites. And people endured. They played the hand they were dealt. They made the most of the their lot. They struggled to provide a better future for their posterity. And you know what the result was? The gradual accumulation of material wealth and knowledge. Rising living standards. Improvements in the human condition.

But I see this sort of thinking too often from Leftists/Liberals/Progressives, and it reveals the base assumption they're working from: that poverty is caused by people wealthier than others, rather than being the natural state of human affairs.

"The Libertarian argument against civil rights legislation is comically bad, since even committed Libertarians will generally agree that we are collectively worse off in a segregated society than in an inclusive one. And you know, it's just obviously historically true the pure carrot approaches are not and have never been sufficient to banish injustices of that nature from our lands. And yet, here AC0 is, rehashing that same tired bullshit in defense of segregated lunch counters. "

So you think groups of people who do not want to live alongside other groups people... should be forced to do so? I actually think segregation is completely legitimate, as every group of people, just like every individual, has the right to pursue their own happiness, destiny, etc. free from the coercion of other groups. And of course, most of the world is segregated: we call the divisions "nations" but there are also districts, counties, states, etc. Unfortunately, the word has a negative connotation. I'm not sure a segregated society would be worse than an inclusive one, but it would depend on whether the segregation was mutually agreed upon by consenting parties.

"But it goes beyond that. Not only is he arguing for an outcome that he admits is bad, but the underlying assumptions are absurd. It isn't just that you might get less dollar bills in your bank account by excluding certain customers or that people might organize boycotts of your business because they hate your hatefulness - it's that dollar bills aren't inherently a thing of value. The statement "all debts public and private" isn't just empty words, that's both a promise and a threat backed up by force of arms. The only reason the "$" is interchangeable with wealth and profit is that the government guarantees that. Society has an interest in forcing you to accept dollars in exchange for goods and services because if you don't there's no money to have more or less of.

I wasn't arguing for an outcome I "admitted" was bad. I was arguing for a principle i.e. you have the right to exclude anyone from your private property for any reason you wish, and doing so for [whatever your reason is] is you taking the stance that you value that reason over financial gain. And it was followed by my acknowledgment that societal forces may or may not work against you, but either way said societal forces would rise to meet the wants / needs / demands of any group AKA "the invisible hand" of the market. And then you talk about the "underlying assumptions" of the Libertarian view and go on about how dollars have no inherent value, which I agree with, but you seem to think it invalidates my view? Or I disagree that statement? And you say society has an interest in forcing you to accept dollars in exchange for goods and services but... that flies in the face of gifts, charity, trading, and SAVING, none of which is illegal. So what are you going on about?

Neither green pieces of paper nor blobs of yellow metal have any inherent value. Such things have value because society says they have value. Assuming you value having an economy at all, rebellions such as "Your money is no good here" are just as much a rebellion as "I don't recognize your ownership of [thing]" or "Your decision to not have sex with me is not valid.""

And here you talk about "an economy" as though it is a thing, or practices, that exist because of Govt, and not something that is a naturally occurring phenomenon given a name, which is what it is. And I'm sorry but "Your money is no good here," is not on par with "I don't recognize your ownership of [thing]" and "Your decision to not have sex with me is not valid," both of which imply violating a person or person's property. The Govt cannot (justly) force me to spend my money. The Govt can (justly) defend my person or property, and as stated earlier, this is the only legitimate use of the force.

But I expect responses that argue about, or ignore entirely, the terms "justice", "force", "freedom", "rights", etc. as I've defined in accordance with the Libertarian philosophy.

[MGuy]

You legitimately believe that people work for shitty wages because they 'want' to and not because the situation they are in gives them little other choice? You think that no matter the structure (assuming a different sort of state) companies won't manipulate that entity? You think monopolies somehow is caused by the government?

We do not live in the same reality. Yeesh. I've talked to libertarians before and they at least try to come up with something like assurances that their system will have fail safes for market failures but there is just nothing here.

[Libertad]

@AC0: what are your thoughts about my first post regarding the seeming stain of many popular Libertarian figures displaying hypocritical racist views? Is this something the ideologues should be concerned about?

[ArmorClassZero]

@MGuy: No. I never said that. I said that if you agree to work for X$/hour, then it is a tacit agreement that your labor is worth X$/hour.

I think that if people were, as Bastiat puts it, enlightened, they would rail against anyone attempting to use the Govt (force) for anything other than it's legitimate purpose. But instead, as he correctly predicts:

"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests."

The classical monopolies people think of (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gould, Morgan) achieved their monopoly status because the Govt (sometimes inadverdantly, sometimes intentionally) gave them special privileges, land grants, subsidies, patents, etc, etc.

[Grek]

You wake up on a sandy beach. A white, college-educated twenty-something is standing over you. He explains that you've washed ashore on Liberterra, and that there is only one source of water on the island, a well which he dug with his own two hands. If you would like to purchase a drink of water, going rate is three days of hard labour per liter. Otherwise, you're free to dig your own well (it should only take you a month or so, using your bare hands) or to set off across the ocean in any direction your choose. No, you may not cut down any of the trees for use in making tools or a raft - those are also his property, as he planted them with his own two hands before you got here.

What is your Libertarian response to this water monopoly?

[OgreBattle]

Kill him and drink my water

[MGuy]

If you agree to X you agree to Y. I did not misunderstand you. Are you purposefully ignoring the "because the situation they are in gives them little other choice" part or is it that you're so incapable of engaging with that part that all you're getting is a 404 error when you try to conceptualize it?

[Username17]

But I expect responses that argue about, or ignore entirely, the terms "justice", "force", "freedom", "rights", etc. as I've defined in accordance with the Libertarian philosophy.

Look, if someone presents you with a logical argument that doesn't mean that they are right. It just means that they've constructed their argument with a logical form. If someone's logical argument presents a set of premises, a set of inferences, and a conclusion where the conclusion is not something you agree with you have three choices. You can accept the conclusion despite your misgivings, you can reject the inference, or you can reject the premises. The idea that we have to accept your definitions, framing, and inferences is absurd. Nothing works like that.

When you come to the conclusion "Actually, civil rights legislation is bad" that's an extraordinary claim. It would take a lot of evidence to get me to believe that, since of course the actual factual passing of civil rights legislation went hand in hand with a juster, safer, wealthier society and the people who opposed civil rights legislation at the time are history's villains. If you come up with a logical argument that purports to come to this surprising conclusion, I would be tempted to double and triple check all your premises and inferences before being persuaded that your conclusion was correct.

As it happens though, the error in your logical argument is simply very easy to spot and doesn't require going through it with a fine tooth comb. Dollars are constructs of society that are invoked and supported with promises and threats. That's just what they are. If you say that the decision to sell a sandwich to a black man for any particular number of dollars or to refuse to trade it for any number of dollars is between those two individuals and outside the interests of society, you are wrong. If dollars are involved, society is involved already. The dollars are a societal construct and have no meaning separate from that.

The reason I can buy shoes with my dollars is that the shoe seller can buy sandwiches with the dollars I give him. For me to have the option to buy shoes with dollars at all for any price the government has to guaranty the ability of the shoe seller to buy sandwiches. I accepted the dollars in exchange for my work in the first place because the shoe seller was going to sell me shoes. The promise and the threat are there from society to both participants in every transaction all the way down.

Obviously society has an interest in whether a sandwich seller will accept dollars in exchange for sandwiches. It's the literal actual foundation of our money. Of our society. Refusing to accept dollars is an act of war, and society is right to treat it as such.

I don't have to comb deeply through your axioms to see where you went wrong. It's in giant flashing lights.

And here you talk about "an economy" as though it is a thing, or practices, that exist because of Govt, and not something that is a naturally occurring phenomenon given a name, which is what it is.

See, that's insane. The idea that dollars exist outside the framework of an American empire that prints, guarantees, and enforcers dollars is totally crazy. I have actual dollars, they are printed by the government of the United States. That's just what they are, where they come from, and what they've always been.

There was a time in human history when the mediums of exchange tended to be shiny shells or lumps of metal. And I could see how someone living in those times could be confused about the nature of value and think the shells or metal intrinsically had some value rather than the value being assigned and enforced by society collectively. But for fuck's sake, people have been exclusively using paper and digital currency that isn't even theoretically backed by anything except the stern intent of societal customs for longer than you've been alive. You've never fucking lived in a world where commerce and value exchange wasn't the exclusive province of societal promises and threats. The fact that you don't understand this is honestly hilarious. It's like a fish not knowing what water is. You have never, in your life, interacted with an economy that wasn't created, regulated, and supported by a government.

-Username17

[ArmorClassZero]

@Libertad: After watching his video on Eric Garner on 1.5x speed, its clear he's not defending the police, he's relaying the NYPD's official story. And the last 10m of the video is an explicit screed against the State (at large and in general). And as one commenter points out: Garner was doing what the Founding Fathers did, essentially. He was avoiding taxes. As a Libertarian, we recognize that taxes are illegitimate (a form of theft by the State) and furthermore, once I purchase (a mutual consenting exchange) something, I'm free to do with it what I wish. So selling loose cigs shouldn't be illegal, but then, just because something is legal does not make it just, and just because something is illegal, doesn't make in unjust.

His stance on disallowing non-white immigration into historically white nations is not at odds with Libertarianism. Just as an individual has rights to self-defense of their liberty, persons, and property, so too does a group of people have those same rights. They scale upward indefinitely, basically. And the majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration, and thus have a right to collectively defend their property. Now, it gets more complicated when you break down the country into states, counties, districts, townships, etc. But effectively, every group, on every level of the scale, has the same rights as an individual. So if my town did not want non-white immigrants, then we could justly exclude them given our right to private property (our town). If my county or state thought the same thing, then we could justly exclude them as an assertion of our collective right to private property.

This may surprise you, but the southern Democrates during the early 1900s weren't Libertarians. Jim Crow and segregation was legal as decreed by the Govt until it wasn't.

I would not be surprised if Ron Paul's "racist" news letters were mostly taken out of context. But I couldn't find them online, but then, I didn't look that hard.

The Alt-Right is correct from a Libertarian point-of-view, but they can't articulate it. The issues is that they frame things in terms of race instead of asserting the collective right to private property, which is actually just and much more agreeable; they've identified that it is a matter of "optics" but they've yet to realize what they need to be saying.

The GOP is the lesser of two evils from the Libertarian perspective, because the Democrats are willing to expand Govt's role as the welfare state, which is just slightly worse that expanding the Govts role as military industrial complex. 50% of the budget goes to military spending, and something like 40% goes to unpaid liabilities: medicare, medicaid, govt pensions, etc.

Not surprised Ayn Rand would dislike Arabs, since she is Jewish, so her tribalism may have colored her view. About the Native Americans: I can see the merits to her thinking, but it still violates 1st principles. No matter how much I may think adopting Western values (liberty, personal and private property) and technologies may be good for them, it does not justify imposing my civilization or whatever on them.

[ArmorClassZero]

@Grek: I see your strawman, and raise you one ad hominem you dumb bastard.

But really, it seems like you're making the assumption that because one recognizes private property rights, that he completely foregoes charity, mercy, compassion, etc.

And yet, I may make an assumption that you're probably one of those people who thinks that Govt has a responsibility to be charitable: that is, after they are done robbing others, that they should spread a little bit of that money to those less fortunate. Of course, it takes a lot of time and effort to determine and allot who gets what, and you need quite the impressive bureaucracy to manage all that money. How do

@MGuy: I ignored it because I already answered it in my thread to Frank and I know the answer I would give wouldn't satisfy you. But to reiterate: Life is tough. You play the hand you're dealt. You do the best you can with what you have. Fortunately, being a nation of free enterprise and competition, more businesses will likely spring up, and so more opportunities to climb the ladder emerge, or you can strike out on your own venture.

But that isn't what you want to hear, because you're one of these people who thinks that the Govt has a duty to be philanthropic. It isn't enough that the Govt just secure the rights of all, but the Govt must go out of its way to aid those in need. The problem with that is that the Govt only has one way of getting money: taking it by the threat of force (taxes). (Alternatively, the Govt can ask the Fed to print more money, but devaluing your currency is just another form of robbery.)

@Frank: If you're trying to talk about a particular field of study, or trade, or profession, and you're using terms in such a way that makes it evident to anyone who knows the field/trade/profession that you don't know what you're talking about, and when someone tries to educate you on how the terms are actually used and what they mean in said field/trade/profession, and your response is "I don't have to accept your definitions!" then that individual is being an obstinate dickhead. Aren't you a paramedic or doctor or something? You should know this. You were trashing Libertarianism when it's clear you had no idea what you're talking about, seeing as how you weren't even close to hitting the mark of what Libertarians actually think.

If you disagree with my definitions, then offer a new, better definition. If you disagree with my premises, refute them. If you disagree with my inferences, refute them. But refute something I've actually said, provide counter-arguments. Don't say I said "Civil rights legislation is bad," because I never did. You keep going on about dollars having no intrinsic value, about them being a societal construct, about them being backed by Govt promise and threat; when have I disputed any of that? I said the Govt can't force me to give you dollars in exchange for your gift, your charity, a mutual non-monetary trade between us, or for nothing at all out of my savings. And yet you maintain that refusing to accept dollars is an act of war, despite the previously mentioned obvious exceptions?

"See, that's insane. The idea that dollars exist outside the framework of an American empire that prints, guarantees, and enforcers dollars is totally crazy. I have actual dollars, they are printed by the government of the United States. That's just what they are, where they come from, and what they've always been.

There was a time in human history when the mediums of exchange tended to be shiny shells or lumps of metal. And I could see how someone living in those times could be confused about the nature of value and think the shells or metal intrinsically had some value rather than the value being assigned and enforced by society collectively. But for fuck's sake, people have been exclusively using paper and digital currency that isn't even theoretically backed by anything except the stern intent of societal customs for longer than you've been alive. You've never fucking lived in a world where commerce and value exchange wasn't the exclusive province of societal promises and threats. The fact that you don't understand this is honestly hilarious. It's like a fish not knowing what water is. You have never, in your life, interacted with an economy that wasn't created, regulated, and supported by a government."

Do you even have a definition of what an economy is? Because you seem to conflate 'economy' with money. You make all sorts of spurious and irrelevant statements about dollars and society, and assume I don't understand any of this, when I've factually never argued against it once during this thread, and in fact, I've agreed with your statements concerning the nature of money. But you have never once bother to define what an economy actually is, which was at the heart of my previous comment about you using the word 'economy' like a layman would use it, which just goes back to the point: you don't know what you're talking about.

I understand this must be embarrassing for you, since it happens so rarely, but it's OK, we're all just human.

Economy: The production and distribution of scarce goods, services, and resources which have alternative uses.
Economics: The study of the consequences of decisions that are made about the use of scarce goods, services, and resources (i.e. land, labor, capital) which have alternative uses, that go into producing the volume of output which determines a countries standard of living.

[Whatever]

"Much of Libertarianism is just a stalking horse for Fascism."

A claim or opinion? Not sure what evidence you have to back this up, and your following arguments don't support this.

Your posts have done more than enough to prove his point.

I understand that you expect to see reasoned and logical rebuttals to your arguments for segregation and whites-only businesses, towns, and nations. But engaging with that kind of neo-nazi garbage only legitimizes the odious beliefs that underly it.

Fuck off.

[MGuy]

So let it be known that when you point out actors in these markets very often are not able to interact with other actors in the market to get a fair price for their labor this particular libertarian's answer is "Life is tough". So on top of this libertarian not living in our reality but also does not care about the people in it.

[souran]

I don't really want to engage AC0 because I am not in high school anymore and not doing Lincoln Douglas debate so I don't have to deal with the same tired ass 50+ year old libertarian arguments.

However, I find it laughable that anybody would argue that libertarianism is not just early stage fascism. There is no group more ready to ascend the latter of wealth or social status an then kick it over before anybody else can get to the top. When libertarians are not in power the state using its authority to defend the rights of minority groups is unjust coercion. However, when they are in power they become Hobbesian Leviathan monsters and any use of state power to protect the right of the ultra wealthy to not pay for the upkeep of the society that allowed them to attain that wealth is justified no matter how brutal.

The only more disingenuous people on the plant are those that argue that socialism of any sort is the same thing as soviet communism.

[ArmorClassZero]

"neo-nazi"

Wait until he finds out the Austrian School of Economics is primarily Jewish thinkers!

@MGuy:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to bake bread.

@Souran: Someone hasn't been paying attention. Said 9x that the only legit use of force is defense of liberty, property, etc. That means everyone (including minorities!) you dingus.

[Grek]

@Grek: I see your strawman, and raise you one ad hominem you dumb bastard.

But really, it seems like you're making the assumption that because one recognizes private property rights, that he completely foregoes charity, mercy, compassion, etc.

No, I am stating the honest fact that if your country does not have a law against price gouging, you will have price gouging, and if your country allows a natural monopoly to be controlled by a private individual, you will be part of a captive market. It doesn't matter if most Libertarians are good people; the entire philosophy eschews public control over private actions, meaning that all it takes is one bad egg to fuck everything up while not technically violating the Principle of Non-Violence.

[Whatever]

"neo-nazi"

Wait until he finds out the Austrian School of Economics is primarily Jewish thinkers!

Arguing that your philosophy was first articulated by Jewish people is irrelevant on every level. What matters is that you're advocating for whites-only businesses and towns and countries right here and right now. That's a neo-nazi position.

Again, fuck off.

[souran]

@Souran: Someone hasn't been paying attention. Said 9x that the only legit use of force is defense of liberty, property, etc. That means everyone (including minorities!) you dingus.

Except you are on record in this thread as defending segregation. What about the minorities freedom to participate in civil society? This is the sort of bullshit that makes you, like the libertarian icon William F Buckley before you, a Crypto-Nazi.

Libertarianism always seems to boile down the the haves telling the have-nots "fuck you, I got mine!"

[Username17]

I'm glad we've literally gotten to the "I'm not a Nazi, I have Jewish friends" stage of the conversation. It helps... clarify things.

-Username17

[Mord]

I got tired of Libertarianism when I realized that it was a "spherical cow" approach to society - it can only work in elaborate thought experiments in which everyone is free of physical constraints such as hunger, disability, or being orphaned. If the real world were like Minecraft and everyone had the ability to scratch the elements of civilization out of the ground as individuals working alone, then maybe there would be a place for libertarianism.

In a world that is imperfectly meritocratic, where physical disabilities and needs do exist, and 10,000 years of human history have already sorted out today's haves and the have-nots, Libertarianism goes beyond the impractical and into the delusional. That's not to say history follows a set course - being a Habsburg isn't as much a big deal today as it was in 1500 - but we were all dropped into a world and a set of circumstances that we didn't earn, much less create for ourselves.

A philosophy that privileges property rights over all other rights and forbids violence or coercive redistribution of any kind necessarily favors those who already have property and puts those who do not have property at the mercy of those who do; like, this is obvious. No other outcome is even possible. That's why this philosophy appeals to plutocrats: it gives them a framework that justifies their existence.

The reason you would believe in the rightness and justice of libertarianism is either because you are a plutocrat, believe yourself capable of becoming a plutocrat (good luck), or don't understand that the world already exists and you cannot make like Ilúvatar and sing a new one into existence so everyone starts over on a level playing field. The playing field is uneven and it always will be. Don't waste my time with proposals about how to organize a real society based on myopic spherical cow philosophy.

[Dean]

Also that their belief system fundamentally requires a belief in magic or magical beings and most won't even acknowledge that.

Explain this.

The foundational believe of libertarianism is that property rights come from above one's society. That they are not bestowed by social contracts but something you are born with. The founder of the modern libertarian movement ascribed this bestowal to what was clearly the christian god, albeit described vaguely with words like "higher power" and so on but clearly the christian god in his imagining.

This is nonsense and frankly, childlike. You were not bestowed with the magical right to own your 2010 Chevy, you own your 2010 Chevy insofar as a governing body exists that will give it back to you if I drive off with it. Already in this thread we have seen this confusion on display in the still unaddressed comments about how there can be no money or no economy without society.

When dogbert says libertarianism is out of touch with reality he's right, when frank says it's solipsist he's right, when jt or I say it falls down on the briefest scrutiny we're right, when mord says it's a spherical cow belief system he's right. It's just a really stupid ideology designed solely for psuedo-intellectuals.

[deaddmwalking]

I thought Kaelik's signature addressed it succinctly.

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.”

? Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

You would think that a Libertarian would look for cost-effective solutions. Lower taxes are something that they spend a lot of time talking about. But they also want protection for their property rights - they're not anarchists!

If you're in favor of the lowest possible tax rate you actually want to seek a balance between the high cost of putting down a full-rebellion at all times and the high cost of 'welfare'.

If spending money on late-night basketball saves you MORE MONEY in criminal costs, why wouldn't you be in favor of it?

Social spending saves money.

Likewise, requiring employers to pay living wages to the employed saves taxpayer money.

Libertarians seem to refuse that they have a moral duty to care for the sick, disabled, and elderly. If you don't begin with the assumption that humans have value regardless of their economic output you can't even join the debate.