Things I have to post - libertarianism derail

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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]

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.

Do you have any critically robust evidence of that?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

Do you have any critically robust evidence of that?

Yep.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[MrJonno]

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."

Why is having an obligation to pay for the right be a citizen more absurd than being able to do so for free?

Being born in a society doesnt make you beholden to it, staying part of it does. I believe the US has silly laws that tax you need to pay US taxes even if you don't live there most countries don't have such laws. If I have UK citizenship but choose not to live there I am under no requirement to pay any taxes to the UK regardless of what I earn.

[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.

Do you have any critically robust evidence of that?

I'd say that Seth's possting is robust and critical, I might even say critically stout.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

Do you have any critically robust evidence of that?

I'd say that Seth's possting is robust and critical, I might even say critically stout.

His posts are certainly morbidly obese.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

NEITHER cartoon was moved. Only the repetition of one and the subsequent OFF-TOPIC discussion.

[PsychoSerenity]

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

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. 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. 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.

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 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.

[Coito ergo sum]

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."

Why is having an obligation to pay for the right be a citizen more absurd than being able to do so for free?

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?

Taxes are not levied on people who don't earn money or buy things, or at least have assets/properties to tax. There is no such thing as an "existence tax" and the very notion is abhorrent. It removes the right of the individual to be a slacker, or a layabout or a hippie. You want to take it easy, and do not much of anything for your life - can't do it, because you need to pay your "existence tax" - which requires that you earn money to pay it.

That might very well be why no country that I know of has had such a thing since feudal times, when taxes were required to be paid regardless of whether you earned any money, grew any food, or had any ability to pay it. That's what an "existence tax" would create - the State would take the place of the feudal Lord and you would owe the feudal Lord obligations. They had to be paid regardless of ability to pay, income, or wealth. Your idea would just replace the Lord of the Manor with the State.

Being born in a society doesnt make you beholden to it, staying part of it does. I believe the US has silly laws that tax you need to pay US taxes even if you don't live there most countries don't have such laws.

That's absurd. We have companies and people who go overseas for the very purpose of avoiding US taxation.

If I have UK citizenship but choose not to live there I am under no requirement to pay any taxes to the UK regardless of what I earn.

Unless you earn it as a result of activities in the UK, then of course you have to pay UK taxes.

If I have US citizenship, but I live in Brazil and I only earn money in Brazil, I pay taxes to Brazil. If I have US citizenship, and I live in Brazil, but a run a store in the US selling goods to Americans, then the income is earned and generated there, and I have to pay US taxes on it, and that makes perfect sense.

I am baffled by the amount of misinformation people subscribe to about the US.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

Well, in libertarianism, you suggest a less-than-attractive array of options. In Marxist socialism, they just eliminate the option, and you just work according to your ability, and get according to your need. No option at all. No choice, free, less free, or otherwise.

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.

And, it depends on each person's subjective opinion about each different situation. I've seen people walk away from jobs they "need" when they had no other options. I've done it myself. Throw caution to the wind is an option. I've done it. Would others feel that they didn't have a choice? Probably. That is, of course, what a libertarian would suggest is a necessary quality of freedom or liberty. If someone needs a place to sleep at night and comes to my door, and says "I need a place to sleep" but I don't know that person, then I might not allow him in at any price. He might look shady, or I may have small children in the house and I don't want to expose the family to any risk. So, he doesn't get what he wants. Is he "desperate?" Has he been "taken advantage of?" What if he was willing to pay $1,000 for one night in a warm bed? If I take it, am I doing him wrong? If I refuse and say "even a billion dollars is not enough," what's the force?

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. 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.

No, socialism does not attempt to do that. Social and liberal democracies and representative constitutional governments do that. Socialism does not, because socialism posits the means of production of all goods and services would be in the State, so a person would be unable to make any such deal. The deal would not just be ameliorated or regulated. It would become a function of the State.

What you've done here is analyze what you believe to be "pure" libertarianism, in its extreme form, and then juxtaposed it not with socialism, but with liberal democracy that regulates market transactions to try to control abuses. Libertarians in general don't suggest eliminating all government either,and there is plenty of room for amelioration of abuses. Most libertarians, for example, support antitrust and anti-monopoly regulations, which are there to maintain the free markets, stop things from becoming too big to fail,and stop the abuses of certain companies or individuals having unlimited and anticompetitive power in a given industry or market. Libertarians are also all for laws against abuses of one individual to another, like duress, coercion, fraud, deception, and other such things. All of that ameliorate the negotiation process in many ways.

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 think you're using the word "force" in a manner inconsistent with common English usage (i.e. in a more expansive fashion than the dictionary definition).

Saying society should strive for free education for all is, also, meaningless without parameters. Well, unless you're suggesting limitless education for all. In that case, fuck yeah, let's do that and I will go back to school for the rest of my life. Just pay for my education, give me universal health care, and I'll go back to college and get degree after degree and party all the time.

Nobody is really for "free education for all" -- rather, it's free education to the extent that people deem reasonable. Free public education through high school was once figured enough. If you want more than that, go for it. Now, folks are clamoring for free education through college. However, the same arguments apply to make education free through law school and doctoral programs, master's degrees, and post-doctoral degrees. What? Only "the rich" should become lawyers and PHD physicists????

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.

Well, because "economic extortion" is a misuse of the term "extortion" and the application of an indefinable term.

What would constitute, in your opinion, "economic extortion?" Is it "extortion" as in a threat of illegal or criminal reprisals in exchange for compliance with some demand? Adding the word "economic" leads me to believe that what it means is that someone wants a product, and it costs X, but they only want to pay X-1. The fact that the seller of the product won't budge is "economic extortion" right? If not, then what is economic extortion?

[Seth]

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.

I didn't say it was communist, I said it was socialist. But the result is the same, if not worse. Socialist governments with "free election" systems are even worse offenders when it comes to pandering to the dependent class. That's exactly why Greece is in trouble. It has too many entitlement programs, too many government workers with pension plans, and not enough money to pay for everything everybody wants for themselves.

This is the case in every socialist entitlement-culture nation on earth. Too few dollars chasing too many "gimme, gimme, gimme" government employees and dependent-class leeches. It doesn't work. It cannot work. When the productive class has been sucked dry by the entitlement leeches, the whole system collapses, and that's what we're seeing in the entire EU right now.

Socialism is pure idiocy made manifest, and anybody with half a brain can see that when the OPM runs out, the system must collapse.

[Seth]

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

It's only conditional on my ability to defend them.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Do you have any critically robust evidence of that?

I'd say that Seth's possting is robust and critical, I might even say critically stout.

His posts are certainly morbidly obese.

Should we call his arguments "husky?"

[Seth]

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.

Depends on what you mean by "take advantage." You are suggesting that living my life as I please without being coerced into paying for the needs of poor people is "taking advantage" of them. How is that the case, pray tell? Did I accept responsibility for their economic status somehow? Is there a contract that says that I agree to support them? If they choose to be poor, is it not an initiation of force for me to interfere with their autonomy and sovereignty and change their lifestyle without their asking me to do so? By what argument do you propose to impose on their liberty to make decisions for themselves without imposing force upon them?

If they need or want help, they can and must ask for it, because for me to assume that they need help based on their appearance is for me to be paternalistically arrogant and disdainful of their right to live life on their own terms and experience the consequences of their decisions.

If they make a bad decision, they can ask for assistance from others. Nothing wrong with that in Libertarian philosophy, and charity, altruism and rational self-interest are what drive Libertarians to help those that are in need, if they ask for help and if they are worthy of that assistance.

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'.

Of course. You falsely imply that just because a person is poor that they ought to automatically qualify for equalization payments to bring their economic status up to that of everybody else. What's your justification for interfering in their lives? Have they asked for assistance? Are they worthy of being gifted with the labor of others on their behalf, or are they merely lazy and indolent and wish to steal the labor of others because it's easier than making good decisions and working their own way through life? Shall I be compelled to support the lazy and indolent merely because they are satisfied with a meager, but work-free lifestyle? I think not.

And how does rescuing people from the consequences of their actions teach them to make better decisions in the future? Should they not be expected to care for themselves so long as they are physically able to do so and not be an unwilling burden on others? Should they not learn that the wages of sloth and idleness are hunger and privation, and that the rewards of hard work are economic success? How do you propose to teach the indolent dependent class that they will be happier and more prosperous if they fend for themselves, work hard, and improve their own economic conditions by binding them to perpetual generational poverty by giving them money to remain indolent? That seems to me to be the greatest fraud and evil ever perpetrated on an entire class of people. The welfare state is a horrendous evil and the US experiment alone (not to mention every other place it's attempted) does not make people's lives better, it chains them for life to government largess and dependence.

It's far better that they get a little hungry and a little cold, because hunger and cold are great motivators towards individual industry and dedication to making one's own way through life as a competent and sovereign individual, rather than a dependent-class prole.

Those who are in genuine need, and who cannot physically fend for themselves will be taken care of through altruism, charity and rational self-interest rather than by the meddling coercion of government. But they have to ask for help, because Libertarians acknowledge the right of every individual to go to hell in their own way, without interference, if that's what they choose. On the other hand, Libertarians see no justification for forcibly extracting money from the unwilling to support those who are going to hell their own way and don't have a sincere interest in improving their lives through better decision making.

An example is drug addicts. In a Libertarian society, nobody's going to interfere with another person's right to put whatever he wants into his body, so long as the person does not in the process initiate force or fraud against another. If that ends up killing them, well, that's their sovereign right as a free individual and nobody's going to save them unless they ask for help, and perhaps not then if the private voluntary donors don't think it's worth the investment of their labor and money to help them. That's allowing a sovereign individual to make free and unfettered choices about how to live, or end, their life. If they want help, they can ask for it, and they might get it if someone finds them worthy of help. If not, well, bad choices are still choices, and people have to suffer the consequence of their choices, good or bad, if they are to learn to make better choices in the future.

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

Again you show your ignorance of Libertarian philosophy, which is not as you characterize it at all.

It's not about greed, it's about respect for the autonomy of every individual and allowing them to live their lives as they see fit, not as others might want them to live, for better or for worse. Those who want help can ask for it, but in the end, it's up to each person to make his way through life without imposing the costs on others. And that's a perfectly just, rational and compassionate philosophy.

[Seth]

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.

Do you have any critically robust evidence of that?

I'd say that Seth's possting is robust and critical, I might even say critically stout.

His posts are certainly morbidly obese.

It's hardly my fault that you're an intellectual anorexic who likes to purge what small amount of bile you manage to produce all over the forum.