Things I have to post - libertarianism derail

[devague]

Sod off!

Go bugger yourself!

Ah, you only take yours up it, I see.

Nah, I shove it up your mommy's and your little sister's.

Aye, and they'd still be virgins when you're done. Ye lack "depth."

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

And I respect their right to be ignorant. I do not, however, expect to support them in their ignorance. They can be ignorant and poor or they can make a rational choice to improve themselves both intellectually and economically. But I'm not paying for it because I did not accept that burden willingly.

Yeah. but once all the ignorant and poor manage to work out they're ignorant and poor, they're quickly going to go from that to violent and entitled. So sometimes chucking a pittance at the social slurry is enlightened self interest.

Plenty of rich folks become violent and entitled. Just look at the OWS movement, where college folks from Columbia and Berkeley think they're "the poor."

[Seth]

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.

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.

It's a form of force because the choice between work for a pittance or starve, isn't a free choice.

Self-imposed constraints on choice are not the equivalent of "force." If you don't want to work for a pittance, then improve your skill set so you are worth more to your employer, or come up with a good idea, find an investor and start your own business. You construct "free choice" to mean "imposing obligations on another person without their consent." The fact that your choice is working or starving does not mean that the employer is obliged to pay you more than your labor is worth, or more than you are willing to accept for your labor in a free negotiation. The degree of motivation to get the job and the wage experienced by you does not mean that the employer is initiating force upon you by offering you a wage lower than you might prefer.

And socialism doesn't need to get around the confiscation of property and denial of personal autonomy, because it doesn't make the claim that it's inherently wrong to do so.

Well, there's a particularly amusing bit of circular logic.

Instead it recognises that all society must necessarily involve some give and take, some limitation of liberties in favour of other liberties or rights.

No, that's NOT what socialism maintains. Socialism maintains, as you clearly stated in your rhetorical tail-chewing, that there are no liberties and no rights, and that it's "give" according to what the State determines you are capable of giving (and often more) and "take" according to what the State decides it needs from you. You are blatantly mis-stating socialist ideology.

My point is, there's a contradiction in libertarian philosophy. If they really didn't use any force or coercion (however mild) over others - there would be no society. Everyone would have to live on their own. But they get around that by disregarding certain ways of forcing people to do things.

Wrong. Nobody is forced to do anything in Libertarianism other than avoid the initiation of force or fraud. They are, however, expected to care for themselves and accept the consequences of their actions and not try to shove those consequences off on others without their consent.

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.

Obviously it's a spectrum and the level to which you might regard it to be force depends on the situation.

No, it's not a spectrum. Force means force. Actual physical force. Fraud means fraud. Actual fraudulent, dishonest conduct.

If two people have fairly equal bargaining positions then the resulting deal is likely to be reasonably fair. Libertarianism, by completely disregarding this type of force in order to maintain it's (arbitrarily defined) notion of absolute natural rights and liberties, fails to acknowledge the unfairness when one party is in a desperate situation.

That's because Libertarianism seeks fairness only insofar as voluntary associations and contracts are indeed voluntary and the terms are clearly stated wit5h honest intent and are strictly complied with by both parties. Libertarianism rejects the socialist notion of "fairness" as meaning "equality of outcome." It accept the proposition that each person is a sovereign individual entitled to make any and all decisions regarding their life that do not involve the initiation of force or fraud on another person, and that they are required to accept and live with the consequences of those decisions.

The relative bargaining positions of two individuals is irrelevant so long as the terms of the bargain are voluntarily accepted by both parties and neither deals with fraudulent intent. If you are starving and need a job, any job, so that you can eat tonight, and I have work to be done, then we negotiate about the value of your labor. The fact that you are hungry does not impose upon me any obligation to pay you more than you are worth to me or more than you are willing to accept for the specified labor.

You can, of course, simply ask me for charity, and if I deem you worthy of the fruits of my labor, I may deign to grant you charitable assistance. Or not.

Socialist-type philosophies on the other hand, acknowledge that this type of force exists throughout society and attempt to counter it, where necessary, by giving extra advantage to those in greater need, or by removing bargaining from the system altogether.

Right. Socialism pretends to be the arbiter of "need" and "ability" and it uses the naked force of the State to extract labor from those according to their ability and then redistribute their labor-input to others according to it's determination of need. It's theft and slavery, pure and simple.

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.

It's not down to me to decide what levels of force are acceptable for society, and it's impossible for me to make a judgement without specific details. It's a gradual spectrum and almost everything involves a balance of powers to some extent. - Though I would say that society should strive for free education for all.

I'm fine with that, so long as it's paid for voluntarily.

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.

It may well not allow for such things to specific legal definitions and any involvement of obvious physical force or threats - but then it sharply and arbitrarily cuts off completely when approaching more indirect force or economic extortion. At this point people are declared to have a "choice" and are fully accountable for themselves. Anything else would be interfering with the free market and other people's liberties. It's the sharpness of the cut-off that highlights the contradiction, where unalienable rights clash with unalienable liberties, and that causes problems in society when people happen to find themselves on the wrong side of it.

The term "economic extortion" is a fallacy because it presumes without support that one party to a voluntary contract are under some obligation to compromise their position in the negotiation based only on the economic position of the person they are negotiating with. There is simply no rational foundation for this argument. You are simply stating the basic socialist premise that "fairness," which is to say equality of outcome, is the appropriate metric upon which a negotiation must be based.

You would need to state what you consider "unalienable liberties" and "unalienable rights" (the distinction is unclear) in order to support your claim.

Are you maintaining that people have an "unalienable liberty" to impose contractual obligations on another based on that other person's superior economic position in a negotiation? If so, where does this "unalienable liberty" emerge from and what is your reasoning for interfering with a free negotiation?

[Seth]

Sod off!

Go bugger yourself!

Ah, you only take yours up it, I see.

Nah, I shove it up your mommy's and your little sister's.

Aye, and they'd still be virgins when you're done. Ye lack "depth."

Well, they seem to like it. They keep calling me back, all the while complaining about your inability to get it up at all, ever.

[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.

And I respect their right to be ignorant. I do not, however, expect to support them in their ignorance. They can be ignorant and poor or they can make a rational choice to improve themselves both intellectually and economically. But I'm not paying for it because I did not accept that burden willingly.

Yeah. but once all the ignorant and poor manage to work out they're ignorant and poor, they're quickly going to go from that to violent and entitled. So sometimes chucking a pittance at the social slurry is enlightened self interest.

Plenty of rich folks become violent and entitled. Just look at the OWS movement, where college folks from Columbia and Berkeley think they're "the poor."

Again, chuck them a pittance and they'll shut up and be less likely to motivate those who have a "real" grievance in comparison. Sure it might be an I-pad rather than a meal but the same principle applies.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you fail to pay your "existence tax," then what happens? The state eliminates you? Imprisons you? Compels you to work off your debt in indentured servitude?

While all rights have to paid for I didnt say that neccessary had to be a financial tax it includes action or inaction

One can pay for one's right to live/exist through inaction? That seems to render the whole notion of paying for the right to exist nonsensical.

The price for the right of life varies but in the UK its not being actively about to serious hurt or kill someone'.

The price to exist in the UK is "not being actively about to serious[ly] hurt or kill someone?" Well, that would certainly be acceptable from a Libertarian perspective. Actively hurting and killing people, or being "about to" do so, are certainly things a Libertarian would think ought to be prohibited.

You don't lose this right if you have already killed someone which you do in countries with the death penalty It's not a very high price to pay but its still a price. Most healthy people have a desire to live but a natural desire in no ways means a natural right which are by definition is man made.

Libertarianism does not (necessarily) depend on the concept of natural rights. Libertarianism is often reasoned through a rational analysis of coequal individuals, and the concept of "harm." Where an individual's actions are not harmful to other individuals, then a Libertarian will reason that the interference of the state is unwarranted. This is the idea of a "civil libertarian," wherein the right to hold beliefs is considered a fundamental right, such that the State ought not be permitted to control it, and by extension, the right to write and publish ideas is considered such a right, as is the right to worship or not worship deities or follow religions. As Jefferson expressed it, what does it matter if a man worships one god or 20 (or presumably, no gods), it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. That's why libertarians tend to be prochoice, pro gay marriage, and pro free speech, pro drug legalization, and that sort of thing.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

And I respect their right to be ignorant. I do not, however, expect to support them in their ignorance. They can be ignorant and poor or they can make a rational choice to improve themselves both intellectually and economically. But I'm not paying for it because I did not accept that burden willingly.

Yeah. but once all the ignorant and poor manage to work out they're ignorant and poor, they're quickly going to go from that to violent and entitled. So sometimes chucking a pittance at the social slurry is enlightened self interest.

Again, chuck them a pittance and they'll shut up and be less likely to motivate those who have a "real" grievance in comparison. Sure it might be an I-pad rather than a meal but the same principle applies.

They never stop demanding. Nothing is good enough. Nothing is ever fair. They get more financial assistance than ever before. More people go to college than ever before, and more people go for free than ever before, and more poor people go to college than ever before. Yet, still the clamor for more. Now they want all college to be cost free up through a bachelor's degree. It won't stop there. The cry will erupt that only the rich get masters degrees, and PHD's and JD's, and they will demand that for free too.

This process is unsustainable.

[Audley Strange]

They never stop demanding. Nothing is good enough. Nothing is ever fair. They get more financial assistance than ever before. More people go to college than ever before, and more people go for free than ever before, and more poor people go to college than ever before. Yet, still the clamor for more. Now they want all college to be cost free up through a bachelor's degree. It won't stop there. The cry will erupt that only the rich get masters degrees, and PHD's and JD's, and they will demand that for free too.

This process is unsustainable.

I agree. Irrationality and greed are the two things inherent to humanity, not to class and such has always put paid to all political utopian philosophies since all require the opposite to some degree. Funny thing is that I'd say that academia is becoming more and more functionally useless and exists often only to perpetuate itself. One day we might realise burger flippers are worth more to society than Analysts of Post War Ethnic literature or the like.

[Coito ergo sum]

Speaking of academia...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

University offers Occupy Wall Street course where students earn class credit by working 'in the field'

It will be taught by Zuccotti Park veteran Dr Hannah Appel, a leading Occupy supporter, the New York Post reports

.

Miss Appel said: 'Inevitably, my experience will color the way I teach, but I feel equipped to teach objectively.

Right, she's not only a supporter, but a leader of the movement, defending its purposes, goals and methods. But, she is "equipped to teach objectively."

[Audley Strange]

Miss Appel said: 'Inevitably, my experience will color the way I teach, but I feel equipped to teach objectively.

But surely...

Nah its got to be linguistic obfuscation to secure a sinecure. I refuse to believe anyone is actually that daft.

[MrJonno]

Libertarianism does not (necessarily) depend on the concept of natural rights

Possibly but the ones who use the concept as a replacement or supplement for god are generally lunatics.

Freedom of action on the whole does more good than bad but thats does not mean its desirable for it to be absolute or that the less restrictions on a person or a society automatically make a happier person/society.

If you try to analyze the data and see that not having/having restriction A or freedom B leads to a better society as defined by the people who live in it then great. But freedom in itself is not natural or even 'good'

[Coito ergo sum]

Libertarianism does not (necessarily) depend on the concept of natural rights

Possibly but the ones who use the concept as a replacement or supplement for god are generally lunatics.

I think that your statement is based on an ignorance of the concept of natural rights and natural law, which is not some new or crackpot theory. It's a venerable philosophy, that harkens back to Plato and Aristotle, and Cicero, and all the way through the political philosophies of Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, etc. The idea of natural law constitutes one of the major pillars supporting English law for the last 1000 years.

Freedom of action on the whole does more good than bad but thats does not mean its desirable for it to be absolute or that the less restrictions on a person or a society automatically make a happier person/society.

That's good, because libertarianism does not advocate absolute freedom of action. Not even close.

If you try to analyze the data and see that not having/having restriction A or freedom B leads to a better society as defined by the people who live in it then great. But freedom in itself is not natural or even 'good'

Socialism, of course, is not about balancing the autonomy of the individual vs the utility toward the common good.

And, libertarianism does leave plenty of room for the governance of human behavior. It's not anarchy, which is what people characterize it as in order to claim that what it means is that the strong get to eat the weak in libertarianism.

[MrJonno]

Socialism, of course, is not about balancing the autonomy of the individual vs the utility toward the common good.

Any sane politics aims to try and balance these aims but at least some libertarians lack the concept of 'the common good'

[Coito ergo sum]

Socialism, of course, is not about balancing the autonomy of the individual vs the utility toward the common good.

Any sane politics aims to try and balance these aims but at least some libertarians lack the concept of 'the common good'

That is true of any political group.

[apophenia]

Btw, it's bulimics who purge, not anorexics, and they don't purge bile.