elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
Philosophy and Libertarianism singapore
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.2

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  All

Author Topic: Philosophy and Libertarianism  (Read 17251 times)

bcdev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +162/-22
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2015, 12:32:12 pm »

I don't speak for libertarianism but objectivism supports the idea of a minimal state, not the abolishment of state (that's anarchy). So, state owns the monopoly to the use of physical force, it just doesn't do much else. This is also known as a night-watchman state.
While the idea of "minimal state", also called minarchism is appealing, I see one problem: every state that started as a minarchy [USA is the prime example] ended up becoming a police state. That's why I don't think it's sustainable, we've seen it fail many times.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 12:36:00 pm by bcdev »
Logged

maddy83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +108/-50
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2015, 01:26:22 pm »

It is important to distinguish whether we are talking in theory or in practice.

Almost any political system "works" if it is a system that the majority of people support and want to live under. Conversely, almost any political system is a bad outcome if it is forced on people who don't want it. So, while I think Objectivism is the "best" system, that is true only in a scenario where the people living under it are objectivists.

In general, I don't think it is realistic to try to change the political system of a whole country. Much better path is to live your own life according to your values, and if possible, find like-minded people that share those values.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 01:29:13 pm by maddy83 »
Logged
Will do small programming tasks for NXT. PM me!

rdanneskjoldr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +28/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2015, 02:36:14 pm »


It gives me the shivers that people could agree to any of that. One of the most disgusting personalities I've ever read about.


Thats the problem, youve read about her, probably biased info, but not read her.
I am absolutely sure you would LOVE many fragments from Atlas Shrugged.

Maybe her as a person had some attitudes we could criticize, but NO ONE, not even Cfb, remains mentally sane forever, and Atlas Shrugged is without doubt a book that should be much more important than the bible.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 02:40:42 pm by rdanneskjoldr »
Logged

rdanneskjoldr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +28/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2015, 02:57:05 pm »


Like I asked in the other thread:
Do you support universal healthcare? (certainly being sick or dead is less freedom than paying taxes)
Free education?
Fee base income? The freedom not to work?


If i personally support it or not doesnt matter, am i not free to have a personal opinion on any matter??  What i absolutely wouldnt do is make everyone pay for it by the use of violence.
 In a libertarian society they would have the health and education system their members want, and if not you are free to walk away from it. And if the most rational option is to pay for public health and education, they would probably end up doing it for THEIR OWN GOOD, but on a rational and consensed way where its objective is GOOD EDUCATION AND HEALTH SYSTEM, not on the corrupted governments way which objective is more control on resources,money, and manipulation + mafia on giving responsability jobs and public jobs who only care on receiving money each month and not trying their best.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 03:00:36 pm by rdanneskjoldr »
Logged

Uniqueorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +155/-168
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2015, 03:04:43 pm »

Atlas Shrugged is without doubt a book that should be much more important than the bible.

I could write some random stuff on a toilet paper while drunk and it would be more important than the bible in 2015..

As for Atla Shrugged and the whole objectivism philosophy: it's superficial. It's rare that I quote Obama on anything, but I agree very much with his comment: "Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity -– that that's a pretty narrow vision."

It is indeed something you pick up in your teens when you start wanting to understand "the bigger picture" / more than your immediate experiences. For many Ayn Rand is a first step towards philosophy and for that it is great. It challenges a lot of notions people hold dear and subtly hint towards deeper perspectives. Sadly most people stop here and adopt this as a life philosophy. I must say every time I speak with someone above the age of 30 who is still praising Ayn Rand as a hero, I can't help but cringe.

You can split objectivism into 2 categories, the metaphysics and ethics.

The metaphysics part is not so controversial. There is an objective reality, there are objective facts, people (consciousnesses) discover this world, not create it etc. This is common sense realism. But it's falls short of any depth. It's just basic as hell. Then there is the issue of "identity" in objectivist metaphysics, it's extremely shallow from a physics and metaphysics POV. This becomes painfully apparent when you apply it to the question of free will. *Most* objectivists I've discussed this with argue that free will exists, yet they accept that the universe is objective and that everything has an identity (with properties). This is a blatant contradiction. Eventhough we can reason and evaluate situations, ultimately we are a part of this objective reality, we are not separate from it and thus our choices are not free in the literal sense.


Ethics is where objectivism really collapses in most peoples minds who give it some deeper consideration, but it would take up too much time.

My biggest question to objectivists is: how much other philosophy have you actually read?

Logged
NXT Organization: Networking

bcdev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +162/-22
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2015, 04:21:13 pm »

Disclaimer: I don't know what Libertarian means, just like I don't know what Christian means. I title myself anarcho-capitalist because it's a much better defined term.

Like I asked in the other thread:
Do you support universal healthcare? (certainly being sick or dead is less freedom than paying taxes)
Free education?
Fee base income? The freedom not to work?
Universal healthcare: You mean state-enforced healthcare? Like in Poland, Canada and USA?
No, I don't support state enforced healthcare. State enforced == monopoly, and monopoly == shitty service. Examples:
1. Canada - there is no private healthcare industry in Canada. None at all. All hospitals are state-supported. Even if you have $1,000,000 you need to wait in line. That is a problem, because some people cannot/don't want to wait for a visits, and go to US to privately do things faster. [Example: Stefan Molyneux went to US to cut out a tumor]
2. Poland - here the situation is a little better. We have a public, but we also have a private healthcare. The problem with a public healthcare is that the waiting lines to specialists can be long, sometimes > 1 year. What's funny is that if you work many jobs [for example you're a business owner and working full-time], you need to pay the healthcare tax two times. Obviously you won't get two beds in hospital if something happens to you. [google "termin do kardiologa"]

Both examples are corrupt and inefficient. There is no incentive to make them better, because you have to pay no matter how shitty they are. And if something really bad happens, you'd have to go to the private industry anyway.
What I'd support? No public health system. Instead, a healthcare subsidized by insurance companies. This way:
1. People with higher risk would pay more. [obese, smokers, etc.]
2. People with lower risk would pay less. [Just like it is with car insurance - better drivers pay less]
3. Overall, the service-per-dollar would get better because bad hospitals would get out of business and good ones would thrive.
4. Insurance companies would get their cut simply because of the law of large numbers.
Logged

ShawnLeary

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2015, 04:31:19 pm »

One of the primary tenants of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Here is a link to the next logical step, see what do you think?

Larkin Rose takes us down the thought pattern of most minarchist, the palatable everyday Libertarianism.  Where does it lead? 

Minarchism (Libertarians) vs Anarchism (Libertarians)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB6EUnq6yX0
Logged

bcdev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +162/-22
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2015, 04:41:58 pm »

Like I asked in the other thread:
Do you support universal healthcare? (certainly being sick or dead is less freedom than paying taxes)
Free education?
Fee base income? The freedom not to work?
I'm against "free" education. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/11/08/get-rich-with-the-library/
Ok, maybe not with a library, but with the internet.

My school years were a total waste. Primary == 95% wasted time. *Middle == 70% wasted time. **University == 95% wasted time.
1. There is nothing [with the exception of fields, where you need to have a physical device to acquire practical knowledge] you cannot learn on your own from the internet.
2. School rarely makes you learn useful things. 90% of it is a total crap that you won't ever use.
3. School rarely teaches you to think. Most of the time it teaches you to remember something, write it on an exam, and forget. As my memory is quite bad, I've had a hard time in a system like that.

* I've learned a lot about computer science in middle school because I trained for an Olympics. That's why the score is so low.
** I'm a high school dropout. My story is: Got a job, decided to stop wasting time.

"Free" education is paid from taxes, so it's not free.

Fee base income? The freedom not to work?
Can you elaborate? I don't think I understand the question.
If you're a consumerist sucka, you give away your freedom not to work [also called savings] for the crap you buy. If you save 75% of your salary, you can retire in 5 years.
Did I understand your question correctly?
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 04:47:15 pm by bcdev »
Logged

ShawnLeary

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2015, 04:55:32 pm »

Education should be earned, not handed out.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 04:58:21 pm by ShawnLeary »
Logged

maddy83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +108/-50
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2015, 05:11:53 pm »

One of the primary tenants of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Here is a link to the next logical step, see what do you think?

Larkin Rose takes us down the thought pattern of most minarchist, the palatable everyday Libertarianism.  Where does it lead? 

Minarchism (Libertarians) vs Anarchism (Libertarians)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB6EUnq6yX0

Very interesting interview, and some good points. A lot of the facts about getting rid of government completely sound good in theory, but how would it work in practice? Everyone would have their own private police and military? Then it becomes a question of who has the most guns (or most money to buy those guns). How does the non-aggression principle work if there is no-one to enforce that principle?
Logged
Will do small programming tasks for NXT. PM me!

davethetrousers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +38/-7
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
  • Tersonal Pext
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2015, 05:34:45 pm »

What I'd support? No public health system. Instead, a healthcare subsidized by insurance companies.

You're advocating precisely the US system pre-Obamacare. We know this system is/was really, really bad, especially in a cost/benefit analysis. Highest costs in the world, with mediocre medical outcomes at best. For those that are insured at all of course, others are roadkill.


Education should be earned, not handed out.

Are you really sure you know what you are saying here?

And if so: Why?

primary tenants

:D :D SCNR
Logged
raspnxt.hopto.org | RPi & Linux stuff | NXT-2UKS-7VYN-Q73Y-EKE8Y

bcdev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +162/-22
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2015, 05:36:05 pm »

A lot of the facts about getting rid of government completely sound good in theory, but how would it work in practice? Everyone would have their own private police and military? Then it becomes a question of who has the most guns (or most money to buy those guns). How does the non-aggression principle work if there is no-one to enforce that principle?
How are you going about this today? How often did you need police or military? Most people never in their life need an intervention of a police. Usually police is associated with tickets and fines.
How often do you need to go to a court? With court fees often reaching tens and hundred thousands of dollars?

As for private armies: They are expensive. If you really want to use a private army, you better make sure that the thing you're trying to get is really worth it. 99% of times it'd be cheaper to buy the thing. Also, if you're a company, hiring an army to do evil is a bad pr.
An anarchistic society would be as armed as Switzerland [no gun regulations].

How an anarchistic court could work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization It's just a one concept how it could work, there are many more.
As for a police, why can't there be 5 different free-market alternatives? If someone breaks into your house, you call [or alarm system calls] them. If they're brutal, corrupt or inefficient, you just subscribe to a different "police", and the bad ones go out of business.

I used the term "police", but in reality they wouldn't have any special rights. Just a bunch of dudes you signed a protection contract with. You could easily start your own "police" if you see a market niche.


The reality is nobody knows how will it work, just like nobody knew how decentralized internet currency could work in 2008.
Logged

bcdev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +162/-22
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2015, 05:46:21 pm »

What I'd support? No public health system. Instead, a healthcare subsidized by insurance companies.
You're advocating precisely the US system pre-Obamacare. We know this system is/was really, really bad, especially in a cost/benefit analysis. Highest costs in the world, with mediocre medical outcomes at best. For those that are insured at all of course, others are roadkill.
Not really. Both systems [insurance and medical] were still heavily and unnecessary regulated. I'd be for throwing the regulations out of a window and instead going with reputation.
If you think that "no regulation" is a problem, there can be a free market "certificate authorities", that could rate hospitals and insurance companies. I think there would be enough information to make an informed decision.
In fact "insurance company" could be a blockchain corporation that doesn't need any fees, with full transparency, accountability and decentralization.
Logged

kwilliams

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +28/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
  • NXT-FG7F-2W46-M7DE-EHPV5
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2015, 06:30:22 pm »

Let me interject here. Please make clear distinction between the means and the outcome. Whereas we all want the same outcome (happiness?) the means of achieving it are many. Some want security, health & wealth yet others like risk, challenge and struggle. Further still there are those who enjoy harming others...

A system of government is only viable if a) capable of balancing internal competing groups and b) able to withstand external attacks. Libertarians (or any other ideology adherents) imagine that following their doctrine will result in a viable system of government with maximum happiness for everyone. Whereas I like Libertarianism as a way of thought, it has yet to prove itself as a ruling doctrine. Many of it values will begin to collapse for example when it has to raise an army to defend the national borders.

Libertarians often think that socialism is evil and what people want (freedom) is good. What if people want socialism? What if they genuinely want someone else to do their chores (coercion or not)?
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 06:38:35 pm by kwilliams »
Logged

maddy83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +108/-50
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2015, 06:39:04 pm »

A lot of the facts about getting rid of government completely sound good in theory, but how would it work in practice? Everyone would have their own private police and military? Then it becomes a question of who has the most guns (or most money to buy those guns). How does the non-aggression principle work if there is no-one to enforce that principle?
How are you going about this today? How often did you need police or military? Most people never in their life need an intervention of a police. Usually police is associated with tickets and fines.
How often do you need to go to a court? With court fees often reaching tens and hundred thousands of dollars?

As for private armies: They are expensive. If you really want to use a private army, you better make sure that the thing you're trying to get is really worth it. 99% of times it'd be cheaper to buy the thing. Also, if you're a company, hiring an army to do evil is a bad pr.
An anarchistic society would be as armed as Switzerland [no gun regulations].

How an anarchistic court could work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization It's just a one concept how it could work, there are many more.
As for a police, why can't there be 5 different free-market alternatives? If someone breaks into your house, you call [or alarm system calls] them. If they're brutal, corrupt or inefficient, you just subscribe to a different "police", and the bad ones go out of business.

I used the term "police", but in reality they wouldn't have any special rights. Just a bunch of dudes you signed a protection contract with. You could easily start your own "police" if you see a market niche.

The reality is nobody knows how will it work, just like nobody knew how decentralized internet currency could work in 2008.

You know there are people who don't have a moral problem with using physical force right? It doesn't matter if 99% "play it nice" and act rationally, the 1% who don't will still be a problem to everyone.

There obviously can't be laws since they would require a state to enforce them. So everything what we think of as "illegal" today would be "legal" in anarchy.

Somalia is a good example of a country which didn't have a centralized government. What followed was endless gang warfare and civil war. In such a system, the most ruthless people tend to rise to the top.
Logged
Will do small programming tasks for NXT. PM me!

kwilliams

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +28/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
  • NXT-FG7F-2W46-M7DE-EHPV5
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2015, 07:10:23 pm »

The question is not whether to have a state or not - the history had spoken on this one already.

What libertarians propose, is a way of scaling back state in times of plenty. Unfortunately, most states turn into oppressive systems (sooner or later) which ultimately cause as much harm (if not more) than they prevented. Your typical state will maintain calm and security (for prolonged intervals), then wage war and kill millions in a short time.
Logged

bcdev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +162/-22
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2015, 07:33:50 pm »

There obviously can't be laws since they would require a state to enforce them. So everything what we think of as "illegal" today would be "legal" in anarchy.
Anarchy means "no rulers". Rules can still exist. And there are rules with which almost all people agree like "no violence" or "no stealing".
So being a murderer or a rapist in an anarchy would end badly, moral people have guns too.

You know there are people who don't have a moral problem with using physical force right? It doesn't matter if 99% "play it nice" and act rationally, the 1% who don't will still be a problem to everyone.

Somalia is a good example of a country which didn't have a centralized government. What followed was endless gang warfare and civil war. In such a system, the most ruthless people tend to rise to the top.
I agree with your example. Somalia is not a good place to live. However it's not a problem of anarchy, it's a problem of people. You cannot take criminals and make them act morally in a free market.
There were some examples where anarchy did work, like Neutral Moresnet [population 4000, about 100 years] or Ireland [population > 100k, > 1000 years].

Do you think that if New Hampshire was removed from US law, protection and other services it would end up violently? I am sure that this experiment would succeed because people there know how to live in an anarchy. There are places on earth though, where anarchy would end up violently. Usually in these places the government is a mafia by itself, adding an oil to the fire.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 08:11:16 pm by bcdev »
Logged

davethetrousers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +38/-7
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
  • Tersonal Pext
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2015, 08:08:12 pm »

What if people want socialism? What if they genuinely want someone else to do their chores (coercion or not)?

That last bit is the definition of capital value realization, by the way. Which system was it again that came up with sweatshops on one hand and fully automatic mass profuction factories on the other? Oh right, it was capitalism :D

Whoever came up with the whole "but socialism is forcing other people to work instead you" routine should get an international holiday of being laughed at.
Logged
raspnxt.hopto.org | RPi & Linux stuff | NXT-2UKS-7VYN-Q73Y-EKE8Y

ShawnLeary

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2015, 04:33:32 am »

One of the primary tenants of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Here is a link to the next logical step, see what do you think?

Larkin Rose takes us down the thought pattern of most minarchist, the palatable everyday Libertarianism.  Where does it lead? 

Minarchism (Libertarians) vs Anarchism (Libertarians)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB6EUnq6yX0

Very interesting interview, and some good points. A lot of the facts about getting rid of government completely sound good in theory, but how would it work in practice? Everyone would have their own private police and military? Then it becomes a question of who has the most guns (or most money to buy those guns). How does the non-aggression principle work if there is no-one to enforce that principle?

I imagine there would be competing police forces.  Most of it is mental masturbation as we all know its not going to happen in our lifetimes.  As technology grows, I believe freedom will as well.  Our ideas today could eventually lead to reality for our kids or grandkids. 
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2015, 08:08:57 pm »

   Damelon asked me about a scenario in which one person controlled all of a “vital resource” in a community and refused to allow anybody else access.  He also stipulated that this resource would be passed from generation to generation and would NEVER be available to the community.

seems the description of a state :)

I am a libertarian too and I like to present the idea in the following terms:

Fact: there are some services, mainly security and legal order, that today are esclusive monopoly of the State, that is an organization that exercises ultimate monopoly of force on a given territory.

Question: is such ultimate monopoly a necessary condition in order to provide those services? Or is it possible to imagine a society where multiple providers of such services work side by side on the same territory? Are the services of security and legal order inherently different from others?

This seems counterintuitive to the common experience of most of us but I believe that is possibile and would be by far better than now. Also the XXI century is slowly moving in that direction thanks to internet and crypto.

I've been working for the past couple of days and see that my thread has been moved to the "never gets read" section.  Oh well, it mostly isn't about NXT and probably belongs here.  If anybody continues to follow it, I will continue to post.

To answer your question about what I think is competing providers of protective services, I'd have to say that it wouldn't work and would likely lead to gang rule.  My police force vs yours, etc.    I believe the proper function go government is to protect the nation with a military and protect the citizens from themselves with a police force.  These two services increase freedom which is my main ideal to always strive to and the benchmark by which all actions must be measured. If you can't leave your house of fear of robbery, you cannot get to market to trade and that's not good for anybody.  That's why a police force is necessary.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 04:37:17 pm by neofelis »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  All
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly