Things I have to post - libertarianism derail

[Seth]

Well, you see, the imagery breaks down when you try to do that. Libertarianism advocates the idea that force against another to take their property is, well, improper, even when it is done by the majority against the minority through the machinery of the State.

Well it claims to,

Well, a philosophy is what it claims to be.

And not the strawman image that detractors consistently put forward.

Sure it's more subtle than pointing a gun at someone, but for that it's a lot more effective on a large scale.

The amount of oil and other naturally resources controlled by Norway is so disproportionately high, that with little effort its 4.5 million people can be supported and there is still a surplus of stuff to sell abroad, resulting an annual surpluses in their economy. In that kind of environment, socialism can work to a degree, because nobody feels the bite very hard.

I've often said that socialism works pretty well (other than the whole liberty issue) until the OPM runs out. This is why Norway is held up as a paragon of democratic socialism. But it's a false or at least incomplete argument precisely because of what you say. Norway has a small population spread over a large area with abundant natural resources that Norway sells on the capitalist free-markets in order to fund its social programs.

But once the OPM (other people's money) runs out, like it did in the Soviet Union and Cuba (and everywhere else it's been tried) the system necessarily collapses because socialism stifles and indeed punishes the very economic model (capitalism and free markets) that it depends on in its resource-rich heyday. So, without the OPM, there's nothing left to sell to capitalists to fund the entitlements, as Greece proves without any doubt.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Greece is communist?

I think you will find that Greece has swung between weakly socialist and weakly conservative governments just like any other country with a free election system.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I was born with all rights, in unlimited supply." You have the right to die. Everything else is conditional.

[PsychoSerenity]

So, you see, your error lies in your gross misunderstanding of Libertarian philosophy and your parroting of the false claims that big-government collectivists purvey using the Big Lie techniques of Marxism.

It's not at all to do with any misunderstanding of Libertarian philosophy, - I understand the philosophy perfectly well enough to make the argument I made, as clearly demonstrated by the first sentence in your post:

It's sophistry to suggest that allowing other people to live their lives as they see fit and allowing them to suffer the consequences of their actions is a "form of force.''

You don't consider it to be a from of force to take advantage of people in desperate situations. Instead, you disregard it as sophistry, and consider it to be 'allowing people to suffer the consequences of living their lives as they see fit'.

That's exactly the type of thing I thought you'd say, and exactly the point I was making. So thanks.

[MrJonno]

You are born with zero rights... (additional twaddle deleted)

Maybe you were, but not me. I was born with all rights, in unlimited supply. How those rights are balanced against the equal rights of others is what civilization and government are all about.

In other words you want something (rights) for nothing, yup libertarianism is theft from society

[Svartalf]

Actually, from the crap I've seen you spouting since I discovered your existence, I'd guess you weren't born with any rights, you were already all wrong.

[Coito ergo sum]

but it gets round the problem by not considering the threat of homelessness, starvation and being otherwise trampled to the bottom of society, to be a form of force.

I don't think that it is true that libertarianism doesn't "consider" things like homelessness, starvation and "trampling to the bottom of society." I think that libertarianism offers a different solution to those problems,

I didn't say it doesn't consider them, I said it doesn't consider them to be a form of force. So they can claim to be against taking another's property by force, while taking advantage of the power over people who are in a desperate situation to take more of their property in a "deal" than they would otherwise be able to.

Anyway boring derail, I'm not going to get into it.

On what basis is it a "form of force?" And, if that is is a "form of force," then how do those who advocate socialism get around the more direct "form of force" regarding confiscation of property and denial of personal autonomy?

I am not even a libertarian, but I don't see how "negotiation" can constitute "a form of force" when no "force" is applied.

I think the idea of "doing a deal one would not otherwise do," is an illusory concept in the sense that every deal is a deal someone would not otherwise do, if they had their 'druthers. Understanding that the best deal for person A is to get good or services X for no charge, gratis, then paying anything more than that is a deal one has to do because the other side, B, won't give it up for free. Whether A is in a "desperate" situation is, of course, purely subjective and in the mind of A, and there is a continuum of feelings in that regard from "I need this product/service so bad that I'll do anything to get it, to I'd like it if it was a little bit cheaper, to you couldn't pay me to take it off your hands."

I.e. - by your logic, I am being subjected to "force" when the bank charges me 8% interest instead of 5% interest, and doesn't let me have the deal I want.

[Coito ergo sum]

This discussion moved from "Things I have to post" cos it's political argument - and NOBODY has to post that!

I have an objection to the movement of the OP to this thread because it is not about libertarianism. The OP is about socialism, so it should have been a "socialism" derail.

The ACTUAL cartoon similar to this one that dealt with libertarianism was, in fact, not moved. I don't know for sure why that would be.

[Audley Strange]

Libertarianism expects people to act rationally and with well-formed adult personalities, and one of the principle tenets of Libertarianism is enlightened rational self-interest. Also, charity and altruism.

That right there, like any other system which demands humans to alter their behaviour en massé, is as doomed to disaster and as fraught with the same potential to genocide as all generalised behavioural philosophies are. People are not rational agents. Most of them can't even read or count.

[Tero]

I've often said that socialism works pretty well (other than the whole liberty issue) until the OPM runs out. This is why Norway is held up as a paragon of democratic socialism. But it's a false or at least incomplete argument precisely because of what you say. Norway has a small population spread over a large area with abundant natural resources that Norway sells on the capitalist free-markets in order to fund its social programs.

But once the OPM (other people's money) runs out, like it did in the Soviet Union and Cuba (and everywhere else it's been tried) the system necessarily collapses because socialism stifles and indeed punishes the very economic model (capitalism and free markets) that it depends on in its resource-rich heyday. So, without the OPM, there's nothing left to sell to capitalists to fund the entitlements, as Greece proves without any doubt.

Huh? If Norway were self contained, it would have no sense of the value of things? You have stretched the concept of OPM too far. We somehow make socialism possible by buying Norwegian oil.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think this is where there is a basic disagreement in philosophy. But, nevertheless, as a matter of principle, libertarians are opposed to one person taking stuff away from another person by force, fraud, duress or coercion, and they are also against the State doing so.

Except that ignores the fact that people think they can havethe right to property, citizenship , freedom of speech etc without paying it, ie natural rights.

Once you see that natural rights are just something made up by libertarians you see that wanting to live in a country without paying for that society is basically theft.

libertarianism doesn't generally advocate "not paying for that society," though. Anarchism does.

There is nothing and I mean absolutely nothing that doesnt have a cost either in actions/inactions or financially (ie taxes). You are born with zero rights but society produces these (not nature) which you pay for.

No natural rights and libertarianism simply is theft

Somehow you can envision forcibly taking something from someone as "not theft," and leaving people alone to a great degree of personal autonomy to be "theft." Hardly a better recasting of Orwell's "Freedom is Slavery" is hard to imagine.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, the guy on our left wants government, but wants to control it. The guy on the right traditionally protested against government, until his ilk had their balls removed. Now punks, anarchists and hippies protest for MORE government. The hippie of the 1960's wouldn't recognize the protest movement of today. He'd think the OWS-ers. There was a time when protesting meant protesting for freedom, life, liberty, peace, etc. Now, people protest because they have to pay back their student loans. Oh, how far we've come...

[MrJonno]

Somehow you can envision forcibly taking something from someone as "not theft," and leaving people alone to a great degree of personal autonomy to be "theft." Hardly a better recasting of Orwell's "Freedom is Slavery" is hard to imagine.

Except you are saying some has the right to exist in a country without paying for it, why should someone be allowed to own a house in a country without not just paying for the house but actually paying for the right to even be there in the first place or the legal system that allows buying anything. You own something not because you have paid for it but because society/government recognises that contract. If you don't have the paid for legal framework you simply don't own it regardless of the interactions between the buyer and seller

[Coito ergo sum]

It's sophistry to suggest that allowing other people to live their lives as they see fit and allowing them to suffer the consequences of their actions is a "form of force.''

You don't consider it to be a from of force to take advantage of people in desperate situations. Instead, you disregard it as sophistry, and consider it to be 'allowing people to suffer the consequences of living their lives as they see fit'.

That's exactly the type of thing I thought you'd say, and exactly the point I was making. So thanks.

To me, I find your suggestion that "taking advantage of people in desperate situations" to be far too general and vague to allow analysis or comment. Provide guidance on what constitutes "taking advantage" and what constitutes a "desperate situation." The reason I ask, is that I have heard some OWS-ers think that students having to pay tuition or being required to pay back student loans they took out equates to taking advantage of them.

I think the devil is in the details there - I would certainly say that libertarianism does not allow for the liberty to commit fraud, to coerce people, to extort, to threaten, to extract deals under duress, and many other things that would certainly fall within "taking advantage" of others.

[Coito ergo sum]

Somehow you can envision forcibly taking something from someone as "not theft," and leaving people alone to a great degree of personal autonomy to be "theft." Hardly a better recasting of Orwell's "Freedom is Slavery" is hard to imagine.

Except you are saying some has the right to exist in a country without paying for it, why should someone be allowed to own a house in a country without not just paying for the house but actually paying for the right to even be there in the first place or the legal system that allows buying anything. You own something not because you have paid for it but because society/government recognises that contract. If you don't have the paid for legal framework you simply don't own it regardless of the interactions between the buyer and seller

Who is saying that? What libertarian doesn't allow for some form of government supported by taxes? There may be some extreme fringe of anarcho-libertarians envisioning a stateless society, but communism envisions a stateless society (and hence no taxing authority to make people "pay" for living in society either).

I think you are correct, though, that most libertarians do not subscribe to the weird notion that "being born" somehow makes one beholden to "society" to make some sort of unspecified payment. We do not have an obligation to pay society money for the "right to even be here in the first place."