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 5 6  All

Author Topic: Philosophy and Libertarianism  (Read 17252 times)

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2015, 08:25:35 pm »

i'm a kind of skeptical relativist.

how do you define "natural rights" ?

how do you define "the nature of Man and Man’s purpose on the Earth"

These are two easy questions and I will refer you to a book called "What ever happened to justice?" by Richard Maybury.  It's very simple to read a provides an excellent understanding of Natural Rights and the concept of justice.

Simply put, and I quite from the above book, I'll put this in big letters so it sinks in…

"Do all you have agreed to do."
"Do not encroach on other people or their property"


These are the two fundamental rules that define the basis of common law.

As for natural rights, they all originate from the right to life.  If you agree that humans have a right to life that cannot be taken from them without reason, all other rights stem from that.  The right to life means a human has the right to do what is necessary to maintain their life.  It does not guarantee them success. The first right I can think of that comes directly from the right to life is the right to own property. If you, as a naked human in the woods by yourself, pick up a stick and use it to till the soil or make a spear to hunt, or anything else.  That stick now belongs to you and if any other human to takes it from you, he is in violation of your right to life.  You can resist his force with force of your own and it would be a moral thing to do.

Once you get really good at making spears, you can start trading with your fellow humans for things such as clothing and shelter.  This is called the division of labor and it has allowed us to thrive as a race.  Imagine if you had to invent everything on your own.

The Nature of Man and our purpose on earth.  We are born without claws or fur or any way to care for ourselves.  We have to survive using our minds and reason to guide us. Without reason, we will die.  Reason tells us not to eat dirt, or at least don't try it twice.  Our purpose on earth is to LIVE and to achieve our own happiness in whatever way we can.  We should not really on others to provide us happiness and we cannot demand others work for our survival.  To do either of those would violate the two fundamental laws, specifically encroachment.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 04:40:41 pm by neofelis »
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2015, 08:44:25 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.  Is this right?  Is it moral?  My response was that this is a fantasy scenario and has never happened and will never happen, IF that society is based on pure Libertarianism and the absolute freedom that involves.

Good thread and much better to continue it separately.

My first rebuttal would be that much as you consider my scenario a fantasy IF it's a perfectly libertarian society, is that in our world we cannot have a theoretically perfect society.

I've done some reading up on the concept of property in the various libertarian groups and there is no consensus. One group (the one you seem to adhere to) claims that anyone who stakes a claim and adds his own labor gains those rights. Other groups says that even when labor is added, personal property is still not possible. I won't use "left" and "right" here, as those labels are loaded. They cloud the issue.

Now I posit that where personal property is involved, and given human nature, that there is a HUGE probability that this woúld lead to hydraulic despotism. If this happens: is this considered moral under that philosophy, yes or no?

I also would like to repeat my question that given that resources are scarce by definition, gaining a resource should automatically limit the freedom of the "other". How is this reconciled in libertarianism?

I disagree that we can't have a perfectly libertarian society.  All we have to do is to respect individual rights.  We almost did it at the start of the United States but it quickly degraded into a few in power using the force given to them by the people to enact whatever programs they thought would be good for the nation. As soon as they started collecting taxes for that, they violated the citizens individual rights, specifically that of property rights.

I agree that not all self-proclaimed libertarians have the same ideals.  I don't understand why anybody would think that if you invent a spear to go hunting with, anybody else would have the right to take that from you by force. To me, that is a direct violation of your right to life.  When I come up with these examples, I am imagining only myself and one other person living on the earth.  That makes it easier to understand the fundamental natural of property rights.

If people respect individual rights, I don't believe hydraulic despotism is possible.  The oppressed people would likely form a government and recruit an army to defend their right to life.  If we are not talking about the use of violence, then the courts would solve the problem using the principles of common law.  The two fundamental theorems of common law are…

Do all you have agreed to.
Do not encroach on other persons or their property.


If somebody is somehow hoarding all the water, say building a dam, then they may be found guilty of denying others down stream the right to life.  Courts would have to evaluate that argument using common law as a standard and in keeping with the two fundamental laws stated above.

To answer your last question about scarcity, I'd have to say that there are some things that are scarce but they are not necessary for life, usually.  In the Sahara Desert this might be re-thought out.  But that's why so few people live there.  They moved away to live.

I don't know anything that is not found in multiple places on the earth and I think that it would be hard to own them all.  If that substance was truly sought after, whoever owned it could command a high price and people would pay it.  Nothing wrong with that.  IF they chose not to ever sell it, people would adapt and learn to live without it.  But then the person who owned it all, would have missed out on a opportunity to improve his lifestyle.  I think eventually, the substance would be distributed as generations passed.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2015, 08:52:37 pm »

Hi all! I have a few questions.

How is justice handled in a libertarian society? Who owns the monopoly of legitimate violence to make sure sentences are enforced? Is it the most powerful supercorporation or is it some kind of elected governing body? Then what's the difference with a normal nation state?

I refer you to "Whatever Happened to Justice" by Richard Maybury, an easy read.

Justice would be handled by the application of Common which is based on Natural Rights.  The two fundamental laws are as follows.

Do all you have agreed to.
Do not encroach on other persons or their property.


Enforcement would be through the use of police force.  A police force is necessary and moral because it increases the freedom of those it serves. Remember, I am for anything that increases freedom.  I don't necessarily agree with jails and prisons although I am still working on how we could do without them.  It is possible and it is discussed in the above mentioned book.

If somebody burned down your house with all your possessions, would you rather see that person placed into jail or set to work off his debt to you?

The application of common law sets right a lot of injustice.  We used to have it in the US but it has long since been dominated by political law.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 04:44:28 pm by neofelis »
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2015, 08:55:40 pm »

It seems the crypto technology can be libertarians' best friend and it can help your guys to build a more objective society.

I agree 100%.  Crypto frees us from the horrible dilution of our money by the government.  Go here to see how much our money in the US has been debased in the post 30 years.  It's sickening.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=221118&category_id=
Logged

EvilDave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +341/-40
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
    • NXT Foundation
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2015, 09:02:24 pm »

Don't forget the most important philosophical rule of them all:

Be excellent to each other.

Logged
Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
NXT Donations: NXT-BNZB-9V8M-XRPW-3S3WD
We will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2015, 09:18:03 pm »

I can't believe anyone follows the ideas of that vile creature Ayn Rand. Did you listen to what she said about the Native Americans? Calling them savages with no right to live in America? About the Middle East - saying that they are primitive societies that have no rights to their own resources? Let alone about all the "only help others if it serves yourself".
It gives me the shivers that people could agree to any of that. One of the most disgusting personalities I've ever read about.

No surprise that she's a great example of the hypocrisy of Libertarianism - after preaching about self-reliance, she secretly lived her last eight years off Social Security and Medicare.

My definition is simply - a libertarian is anybody who is for anything that increases freedom and against anything that decreases freedom while simultaneously preserving natural rights.

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 think what it is really about is the worship of ownership. Because strangely that is the only right that the Government is supposed to defend with violence.
But why is ownership a "natural right"? Not that I'm against it - but there is nothing natural about it. Especially land-property is a modern human concept - it doesn't exist in nature.

The contradictions are clear. The complete impracticality of a Libertarian society is clear. Can't see whats so philosophical about it.
I'm personal someone more relying on science - and that's another field that debunked ideas that all this rests on: Like the myth of efficient markets. Of rational people. Of endless resources...

I agree with you about Ayn Rand's rather harsh words about American Indians.  That's a whole discussion in itself.  But, putting that aside, her work on the development of Objectivism is an amazing feat of intelligence and thought.  She created an entire philosophy based on reason and it's application to the way humans live. I have read everything she ever wrote and some of it is hard to digest but after thinking about it it for awhile, it makes sense.  It seems crazy to say that altruism is evil as she posits. But after some serious soul searching, I have come to believe that she was right and it was the philosophy of altruism that has lead to the down fall of Western civilization. 

Imagine a person who believes that sacrifice (no matter how small or large) is a virtue and something to be admired. Now imagine that person in a position of political power.  They would to see a wealthy man who gives nothing to charity as evil even though he is working hard for everything he owns and has acquired it through value-for-value free trade with others.  That person in power would say "He has enough and has not given back to society" and use his power to tax the successful man.  Some would even take everything that successful man has created.  Remember "You didn't earn that, somebody else built that."  Obama's mantra. 

I, and I suspect most self-proclaimed libertarians, do not believe in free universal healthcare, free education, or free base income.  First of all, nothing is free.  Somebody is paying for it.  It is usually the successful in society that pay the tab for all these social programs.  Those of ability pay for those without ability or motivation.  Taxing for that purpose violates the individual right to property and is clearly immoral under a system based on reason.  This is not to say that the poor or uneducated should not be helped.  I believe in charity, although it is not a virtue.  Before the government took over education and healthcare, there were plenty of charitable organizations who helped the needy.  More on this later if you want to talk about it.

Remember, you cannot violate individual rights under any circumstance in the application of any government program.  The ends never justify the means.  If the means are immoral, the result will be immoral.

Land ownership is a natural right and comes from the right to property.  If the land is yours and has been worked by you for whatever purpose.  Say farming.  You till the land that nobody else has worked before you, and that land should be yours. 

The government's job is to defend all individual rights, life, liberty and property.  And yes they are authorized to use force to do this.  The citizens of a free country voluntarily give up their right to use force to defend their property and give it to the government.

Lastly, you have not made clear your claim that Libertarianism is impractical.  You have given no evidence to support that.  Please elaborate.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 04:49:43 pm by neofelis »
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2015, 01:59:24 am »

No surprise that she's a great example of the hypocrisy of Libertarianism - after preaching about self-reliance, she secretly lived her last eight years off Social Security and Medicare.

As a citizen, she was taxed by force to pay for both Medicare and Social Security.  She has every right to recoup these losses plus any interest she may have earned.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2015, 02:01:16 am »

I tend to agree with your sentiment about the vile creature, but I have to admit that Stefan Molyneux's apology for Ayn Rand made me change my mind on a couple of important points. He does address the problem with the American Natives. Have a listen if you're interested. It's four parts long, I think, but fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-2c7Keic_A

Edit: He also addresses her use of medicare, as I recall.

I've seen these. They are long but well thought out.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2015, 02:19:19 am »

When it comes to resource competition, the process is governed by the laws of Darwin which (unlike libertarianism) are natural  -  their effects can be observed regardless of the time, place or the beliefs of the observer. According to these laws when a (vital) resource is denied to an actor,  the later ether have to perish or win it back. In the process, all available means will be used (regardless whether they comply with prevailing ideology or not).

Unlike animals, humans have the faculty of reason. Animals survive by violence, taking what they need from whatever they can get it from. They don't recognize property rights and they don't freely trade with each other.  By your definition, whenever a person has something you want (or think you need), you have the natural right to take it from them.  Hardly civilized.  Humans are not animals.

I agree with your analysis of healthcare, though. :)
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #49 on: February 13, 2015, 02:25:03 am »

Oh dear, I am late to this thread. Hope I can catch up with you guys.

One of the more recent philosophers that I’ve studied is Ayn Rand.  Her philosophy of Objectivism is based on reason and the use of the senses to acquire knowledge.

I love Ayn Rand. Reading Atlas Shrugged changed my life. It warms my heart to know there are other Objectivists here.

I can't believe anyone follows the ideas of that vile creature Ayn Rand. Did you listen to what she said about the Native Americans? Calling them savages with no right to live in America? About the Middle East - saying that they are primitive societies that have no rights to their own resources? Let alone about all the "only help others if it serves yourself".
It gives me the shivers that people could agree to any of that. One of the most disgusting personalities I've ever read about.

No surprise that she's a great example of the hypocrisy of Libertarianism - after preaching about self-reliance, she secretly lived her last eight years off Social Security and Medicare.

You sound very hateful. So, you try to find one sentence that she said that makes her "bad", and then propose that it invalidates the other 99% of what she said?

+1440

I find that those that condemn Ayn Rand, haven't read much, if any, of her work.  They certainly can't explain it coherently and frequently make giant leaps in logic that don't follow reason.  I started this thread to try and get some of those views out there as I believe most people who would support crypto would also agree with the whole concept of individual rights. I'm kinda disappointed it got sent to the Pub Crawl section.  I think everything we talk about is very relevant to crypto.  Besides, there are a lot of threads in the general discussion that don't deal with NXT.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2015, 02:39:04 am »

To keep this thread clear, I think we should clearly distinguish between Objectivism and Libertarianism.

These two are not identical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

True.  Objectivism is a philosophy and Libertarianism is a political movement.  In her time, Ayn Rand thought Libertarians were completely wrong but that was in the early 60s.  I don't know what she'd say about today's Libertarians.  IMHO, not many practice what I call Pure Libertarianism.  If you ask someone about freedom, they'll all agree that more freedom is better.  That is, until you tell them that their favorite government program (usually Medicare or Social Security) is a complete violation of property rights.  Then they steadfastly defend that program.  They are hypocrites.  When my time comes, I will definitely take Social Security and Medicare because I was forced to pay into those systems, but I will always fight to eliminate those. They are immoral and America will be better off without them. The world would be better off without them.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 04:52:29 pm by neofelis »
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2015, 02:43:11 am »

Until today I had never heard about Ayn Rand. I guess the Wiki page is a bit short for forming an opinion, but I couldn't agree less with objectivism!

IMO, there is no such thing as objective reality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

Amazing as Human Thought is rich and diversified, isn't it?  :D

If you don't believe in objective reality, then you definitely would not agree with Objectivism.  It merely states that man learns through the use of his senses and the process of reason.  Anything else is pure mysticism.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2015, 02:47:26 am »

To keep this thread clear, I think we should clearly distinguish between Objectivism and Libertarianism. These two are not identical.

That's really important, and precisely the reason why I made the distinction between the two in my previous post.

The problem with "libertarianism" is that there is no clearly defined meaning for it. It is used to refer to a wide range of political systems which are not compatible. Here's a quote from the wikipedia article:

Quote
Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas...

So, how can we discuss about "libertarianism", when it has no clearly defined meaning? Intelligent discussion becomes rather difficult if a word means something to one person, but something else to another. There is even something called "libertarian socialism", how's that for a contradiction?

Objectivism, on the other hand, is fairly strictly defined. That's why I prefer to use that word.

I agree.  That's why I choose to call my own little version of libertarianism pure.  Because it simply means that all freedom is good and lack of freedom is bad, so long as man's natural rights are not violated. When you violate someone's rights exercising your freedom, it is immoral and wrong. That's what courts are for.  To sort out the conflicts.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 04:53:52 pm by neofelis »
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2015, 03:00:16 am »


Thanks for the answer! I read the wiki articles.
But now I have more questions.
How is objectivism different from classical liberalism? How do you define "minimal state"?  Won't there be a different instance for each populations or is it one-size-fits-all (and then a world government becomes desirable for its efficiency)?

Also, in such a system, how is it not in the interest of the average worker to organize into unions and ask more from their government and the owners of the means of production? One could be altruistic and argue that it weakens the whole system for everyone but on average each organized worker does get an individual gain. Now that sounds very similar to the system we live in.

Is there a perfect political/economical system or is the long term survival of the human race not grounded in the diversity and dialectics of its political systems instead, just like all systems with a dynamics of "natural selection"?

Personally I think that more transparency in governments would alleviate a lot of our problems (corruption, growing social inequalities, inefficiencies, etc.) and blockchain technologies are a very big step in this direction once we can force our way into the system.

But then we are slowing creating an autonomous Skynet ... so we are all doomed anyway.

Have a good day!

An Objectivist minimal state would be one that provides only a military and a police force.  These two entities protect individual rights and do nothing else. 

Any group of workers in a free society can organize into a union if they desire it.  That's what freedom is all about.  I'm all for unions. Of course, any employer can choose not to negotiate with a union if he so chooses.  He could fire them all if they strike.  That's HIS freedom.  Freedom works both ways.  If a union has skilled labor that the employer needs, he may have to negotiate with the union if he wants his skilled workers to keep working. Unions could ask for more power from the government but it wouldn't have the authority to give it to them.  Any special favors given to the unions would be a violation of somebody else's freedom and would not be permissible.

Freedom is NOT EASY.  You may want yourself to be completely free but you may have a hard time allowing somebody else that same freedom.  So many people want to use the force of government to get others to bend to their will.  Sad.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2015, 03:02:59 am »

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.

Sad but true.  The US almost did it, but the constitution wasn't crystal clear on what was and was not permitted.  Nor did it emphasize freedom.  I'm sure the founding fathers would have a lot to say about all our social programs a our lovely central bank.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2015, 03:11:34 am »

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.

I work in the healthcare system and the only reason it is so expensive is because of government intervention.  Government sets prices with Medicare and price fixing leads to shortages.  US healthcare is far far far from a free market.

As for education, the only reason it is so expensive is because of government intervention yet again. If you can get into a college and study for ANY degree, the government is happy to loan you as much as it takes to graduate. That is why we have people with degrees in Lesbian Studies and >$100,000 debt.  That's debt, by the way, you can't escape from.  No bankruptcy will absolve you from student loan debt and guess who will be knocking on your door to collect?  You guessed it! The IRS.  Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be reasonable.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2015, 03:23:52 am »

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

Thales, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Siddartha, Machiavelli, Martin Luther, Francis Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Newton, Locke, Voltaire, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzche, and of course RAND.

There's more to Philosophy than metaphysics and ethics.  Haven't you heard of epistemology, politics, and aesthetics?  If you study Objectivist epistemology (There's a book on it written by Rand herself), you may change you opinion on the metaphysics.  It's based on pure logic and quite compelling. It's only about 50 pages but they are slow to digest.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2015, 03:29:17 am »

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.

Even before Obamacare, the healthcare industry was dominated by Medicare.  There has not been a free market in healthcare since 1965.  Insurance companies set their rates based on Medicare.  Medicare reimbursement goes up and insurance reimbursement goes up. Rarely happens.  Medicare reimbursement goes down, insurance reimbursements go down.  BUT , insurance premiums always go up.  No competition.  Ugly system. 
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2015, 03:32:29 am »

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)?

People can have socialism if they can get enough other people to donate to their socialist society.  They are free to try this.  What they can't do, however, is force others to join and pay for their socialism.  Socialism is force.
Logged

neofelis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +74/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy and Libertarianism
« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2015, 03:41:06 am »


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.

In very poor countries, there are people who work in factories (you call them sweatshops) to make goods for us, true.  So lets close down these factories and where will the people work?  They are working voluntarily and getting paid to do so.  Nobody is forcing anybody to work.  Hmmm lets looks at places where these 'sweatshops' were operating in the 70s and 80s.  Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, the Philipines.  These places are now thriving and have increased their standard of living five fold in just one generation.  Let's hear it for Capitalism!  I suppose davethetrousers would have them still poor so he wouldn't feel guilty about exploiting them.  I call that free trade, BTW.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 04:57:59 pm by neofelis »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  All
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly