I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.
And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.
Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.
Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.
All three only cared about people they judged to be worthy. That's what made them atrocious- they were content to abuse and kill masses of people because they decided they were a threat to their image of society.
Communism was supposed to care for the people- that's the problem, it didn't, the people who actually put the system in place and managed it (at least most of them) cared more about their idea of society than actual individuals wellbeing.
It's impossible to care about individuals well being without some sort of idea of society. From the point of view of the government, it's very difficult to help someone without hurt someone else. To favor some you must screw others and the choice of who to help and who to screw makes part of what an 'idea of society' is.
That's why society should generally be modelled to promote the greatest possible collective wellbeing. If some few people pose a threat to many others wellbeing then infringing on those peoples wellbeing to protect the others make sense. As is this case with things like fines and imprisonment.
The communists cannot be in fault for caring more about their idea of society then some group of individuals because that's what every political party do.
They didn't just care more their idea of society than certain individuals wellbeing, but more than the collective wellbeing of society. They made things worse overall, for millions, not just for some people.
The collective wellbeing of society is more important than any political philosophy, if for no other reason than that's what most political philosophies are supposed to promote.
Their fault was not lack of empathy or social apathy, but underestimating the role freedom of speech, thought, trade and enterprise play in human development.
They killed millions over a period of decades. It wasn't 'oops, we did a terrible thing', they knew what they were doing and kept doing it. That displays a lack of empathy.
These other things certainly were relevant to the problems, but the problems wouldn't have gone on for as long as they did as obviously as they did if not for a lack of concern for peoples wellbeing.
Modern day socialism is expanding because it recognizes those things and even claim to actively promote then (if this claim holds is sort of the central political debate of our age).
Absolutely. Modern day countries have already implemented socialistic policies to desirable effect, especially- with regards to the extent of socialistic policy- some of the European countries following a social democracy model.
I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.
And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.
Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.
Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.
All three only cared about people they judged to be worthy. That's what made them atrocious- they were content to abuse and kill masses of people because they decided they were a threat to their image of society.
Communism was supposed to care for the people- that's the problem, it didn't, the people who actually put the system in place and managed it (at least most of them) cared more about their idea of society than actual individuals wellbeing.
It's impossible to care about individuals well being without some sort of idea of society. From the point of view of the government, it's very difficult to help someone without hurt someone else. To favor some you must screw others and the choice of who to help and who to screw makes part of what an 'idea of society' is.
That's why society should generally be modelled to promote the greatest possible collective wellbeing. If some few people pose a threat to many others wellbeing then infringing on those peoples wellbeing to protect the others make sense. As is this case with things like fines and imprisonment.
They didn't just care more their idea of society than certain individuals wellbeing, but more than the collective wellbeing of society. They made things worse overall, for millions, not just for some people.
The collective wellbeing of society is more important than any political philosophy, if for no other reason than that's what most political philosophies are supposed to promote.
But what collective wellbeing is ? The point is: defining wellbeing (specially "collective wellbeing") is already engaging in political ideology. So you can't care for one more then other.
The communists, inside their own philosophy, did not make things worse as "irrational" consumption is not what they consider wellbeing. For then, for example, simply eliminating unemployment by the virtue of being a planned economy made life better for everyone.
To make my point very clear - I challenge the existence of a non-political definition of society's wellbeing.
They killed millions over a period of decades. It wasn't 'oops, we did a terrible thing', they knew what they were doing and kept doing it. That displays a lack of empathy.
These other things certainly were relevant to the problems, but the problems wouldn't have gone on for as long as they did as obviously as they did if not for a lack of concern for peoples wellbeing.
The problem had gone as far as they did because solutions are hard to come up and once you have then they are hard to implement. We don't change things because we know they aren't working - we change then because we believe we found better alternatives.
There is plenty of concern for people's welfare in the current Cuban government - as they always are in most government offices. The issue is not that bureaucrats are heartless, it's that they don't know what to do. And no one knows to be honest.
Absolutely. Modern day countries have already implemented socialistic policies to desirable effect, especially- with regards to the extent of socialistic policy- some of the European countries following a social democracy model.
My take is that things are not that simple. The successful social democracies like Sweden and Canada never really had social issues in the same scale as countries like the US, Latin America and Asian countries. It means that for then things like socialized education and healthcare are not as expansive.
In Latin American the same welfare model have been tried several times, to very little success. It could be for many other factors, but it's my belief that it's just not viable to ask for 5% of the population to pay for everyone housing, healthcare and education. It will just not work.
But what collective wellbeing is ? The point is: defining wellbeing (specially "collective wellbeing") is already engaging in political ideology. So you can't care for one more then other.
Two can play that game. Define "political".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.
Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.
All three only cared about people they judged to be worthy. That's what made them atrocious- they were content to abuse and kill masses of people because they decided they were a threat to their image of society.
Communism was supposed to care for the people- that's the problem, it didn't, the people who actually put the system in place and managed it (at least most of them) cared more about their idea of society than actual individuals wellbeing.
It's impossible to care about individuals well being without some sort of idea of society. From the point of view of the government, it's very difficult to help someone without hurt someone else. To favor some you must screw others and the choice of who to help and who to screw makes part of what an 'idea of society' is.
That's why society should generally be modelled to promote the greatest possible collective wellbeing. If some few people pose a threat to many others wellbeing then infringing on those peoples wellbeing to protect the others make sense. As is this case with things like fines and imprisonment.
They didn't just care more their idea of society than certain individuals wellbeing, but more than the collective wellbeing of society. They made things worse overall, for millions, not just for some people.
The collective wellbeing of society is more important than any political philosophy, if for no other reason than that's what most political philosophies are supposed to promote.
But what collective wellbeing is ? The point is: defining wellbeing (specially "collective wellbeing") is already engaging in political ideology. So you can't care for one more then other.
You can define wellbeing (collective wellbeing is referring to basically just the average wellbeing of people in a state) without defining a political philosophy. The question of what wellbeing means is ethical not political, and doesn't define any particular political viewpoint.
The communists, inside their own philosophy, did not make things worse as "irrational" consumption is not what they consider wellbeing. For then, for example, simply eliminating unemployment by the virtue of being a planned economy made life better for everyone.
Wellbeing is a fairly practical affair. You can put fairly simple measurements to it because it's pretty much just subjective individual experience- being healthy, being emotionally and intellectually fulfilled, being relatively safe- things that can be measured or otherwise analysed at fairly high level.
You don't get to decide what makes people happy, healthy or comfortable.
To make my point very clear - I challenge the existence of a non-political definition of society's wellbeing.
I am not talking about society's wellbeing- I am talking about the personal wellbeing of the people in a society.
They killed millions over a period of decades. It wasn't 'oops, we did a terrible thing', they knew what they were doing and kept doing it. That displays a lack of empathy.
These other things certainly were relevant to the problems, but the problems wouldn't have gone on for as long as they did as obviously as they did if not for a lack of concern for peoples wellbeing.
The problem had gone as far as they did because solutions are hard to come up and once you have then they are hard to implement. We don't change things because we know they aren't working - we change then because we believe we found better alternatives.
They put tens of thousands people in forced labour camps for political dissent or lack of work ethic and letting the camps be run often largely people imprisoned there.
How do you stop all the suffering that occurred as a result? Stop putting so many people into intentionally deplorable conditions. It's a prison system, it's designed to cause some amount of suffering.
(That wasn't all they did though)
There is plenty of concern for people's welfare in the current Cuban government - as they always are in most government offices. The issue is not that bureaucrats are heartless, it's that they don't know what to do. And no one knows to be honest.
I'm not saying all forms of communism government have, at least, the same extent of problems as the Soviet Union did.
Absolutely. Modern day countries have already implemented socialistic policies to desirable effect, especially- with regards to the extent of socialistic policy- some of the European countries following a social democracy model.
My take is that things are not that simple.
All I'm saying is socialistic policies have had beneficial effects in various modern countries and the European social democracy countries are a good example to show this because they have a large number of socialistic policies.
I'm not saying here that socialistic policies always improve things or that the European social democracy countries are better than other countries because of it.
I'm just going to side step the Nazi discussion and attempt to explain what I, and many of my peers, understand what it is to be Libertarians. I guess you could group us in the right minded minarchists, though that is far from being accurate. To me, what it means to be a Libertarian in Modern USA is to believe in a small Federal government, and larger state and local governments. Some advocate that the Fed have no more power than what the US's Constitution sets out, while others support a slightly wider, but still severely limited, range of power. Most of the expanded powers I've seen seek to limit monopolies, and limit corporations ability to influence the government. The goal is to minimize the Federal Government, and make each state much more independent. While the traditional ideals of Libertarianism border on socialism, communism, and anarchy, the American Libertarian believes in the idea of a Federal Republic. However, a Libertarian values the idea of being a collection of individual states over the larger federal body they unite to become. State independence is a core belief in this set of ideals.
Social issues inside the "party" get murky, as while most believe in equal rights for all, some believe that it's not up to the Fed to pass laws concerning these equal rights as long as peoples core rights aren't being violated. These people believe that it is the states right to doing ban or legalize things like gay marriage, or abortion rights. The argument against this is, any infringement of equal rights is a violation of the Ninth Amendment. As far as I've seen, this seems to be the issue American Libertarians argue the most. Not if they should have equal rights, but who gets to make the laws to grant equal rights.
It seems as if we've co-opted a work that has nothing to do with many of the values we actually believe in. Sounds about par for the course if I'm perfectly honest.
To me, what it means to be a Libertarian in Modern USA is to believe in a small Federal government, and larger state and local governments.
You seem to be confusing Libertarians with Republicans. At least, the stated positions of each; actions may vary.
I understand that Republicans state many of the ideals I feel are synonymous with American Libertarianism, their actions haven't always reflected this. No matter what party has controlled the US government in the recent past, the Federal Government has grown and grown, in both power and scope. I also believe that the Republican party is reacting to the rise in what I deem as Libertarian beliefs. They seem to be adopting many of these values, changing to attempt to meet the change in public ideals. I know many whom feel like the Republican party took over things like the Tea Party for their own gains, while not actually furthering or supporting the Tea Parties goals. Now, one of the Libertarian "god fathers" Ron Paul, did run as a Republican in order to garner support from the larger party, his rhetoric and ideals where and are vastly different from his Republican peers, even though several of his talking points seemed to fall under the Republican banner. The Republicans have not supported their supposed position on strengthening the state and local governments over the larger Federal body with any real action in a long time. I think this is why things like the Tea party and the Libertarian party have started to gain support. Feed up with the empty promises of the Republican party, many are looking for a party that may actually try to follow through.
Now on whether or not such a system is do able in today's age is up for debate. You can argue the Republicans had to abandon the idea in practice because it didn't work. The founding fathers tried a system more like what many Libertarians wanted, and it failed, with only Jefferson standing strong in what he wanted. I think the US government could learn a lot from something like the EU. In many ways it is structured like a Federal Republic. The individual countries inside the EU have vast freedoms in law and policy, but have a centralized government that can make laws that affect the whole of the Union. However, that feels like a subject for another thread, as this one seems to be more centralized on the ideologies of Libertarianism over what it's political party stands for.
As far as I've seen, this seems to be the issue American Libertarians argue the most. Not if they should have equal rights, but who gets to make the laws to grant equal rights.
That's weird, as far as I've seen the libertarian party spends its time arguing over whether you should be able to sell heroine to children.
As far as I've seen, this seems to be the issue American Libertarians argue the most. Not if they should have equal rights, but who gets to make the laws to grant equal rights.
That's weird, as far as I've seen the libertarian party spends its time arguing over whether you should be able to sell heroine to children.
Can you defend this or are you just throwing this out there? I've seen no evidence prior to this point, confirmed or unconfirmed, to support this point.
Can you defend this or are you just throwing this out there? I've seen no evidence prior to this point, confirmed or unconfirmed, to support this point.
This was a question during the 2016 debate. Derryl Perry said heroine should be as legal as tomatoes, and he was met with raucous applause. Austin Peterson said that he supports state-level laws that say "you should not be able to sell heroine to a five year old". He was met with boos.
My point is that you say libertarians want small federal government and larger state government. But that's what the republicans (say) they want. Meanwhile, the libertarian party says they want small federal and small state government.
There are different factions inside libertarianism that want different things, just like there are different groups within Conservatism and Liberalism in America today. (If you don't believe me, compare Russell Kirk to Sean Hannidy.) Minarchists are probably the biggest faction (or group of groups) within Libertarianism in America, but they aren't the only ones. Anarchocapitalism, or right anarchism, is also a well-entrenched position in Libertarian thought. Indeed, Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian himself, was an AnCap. To answer Lithl's point, different Libertarians say different things. There seem to be a couple reasons for this:
--Some don't understand the theory, or don't take the time to look it up. I've meet people before who say that they want people to just be able to do whatever they want, but have never heard of the Nonagression principle or Lockean defense of property rights. As such, they can come to a lot of conclusions that are in conflict with libertarianism.
--Some come to libertarianism on utilitarian grounds, and advocate for more freedom because it is useful for societal wellbeing. (That term is honestly just a fancy way of saying "things being more in line with whatever I consider to be good." Thankfully there are a lot of things that most reasonable people agree on. Just about everyone I've ever met would say that it's better for people to be well-fed and enjoying themselves rather than starving and dying, for example.) Because they advocate liberty on the basis of outcomes, not on the principle of the matter, they also can come to conclusions that can conflict with libertarianism. They say essentially "freedom is the way to go because it works." Utilitarian Libertarians can argue that their positions are consistent with libertarianism, with varying degrees of plausibility.
--Some come to libertarianism on basis of the principle of the matter. Starting from the principle that you own yourself and own other stuff, ought not to violate anyone's property rights. The philosophical justifications for this vary. Natural rights theory is the main one, I think, but I may be mistaken, as I haven't been exposed to enough people in the movement to definitively say. Taken to its logical conclusion, this leads to Anarchocapitalism--the theory that since governments,force you to pay taxes without consent or a legitimate ownership of the land and do a number of other things to abridge your rights, that they are inherently in violation of human rights and ought to be eliminated in favor of private companies and charities. Many people who believe in the principle balk at this conclusion, however, and come to minarchism or conservatism as a result. They'll offer justifications for governments' existence, primarily that we need it to survive. This is probably dominant because it is so very intuitive. Thus, conflict among libertarians who believe in libertarianism based on the principle can arise, but it is different from the kinds of disagreements that arise between principle-based libertarians and utilitarianism-based libertarians in that squabbles between principle-based libertarians focus on what policy is implied by libertarian theory and/or values. Utilitarian vs principle on the other hand usually boils down to argument over what justification ought to be used in setting the political structures advocated in libertarian circles: the Utilitarian says "do what works" while the advocate for principle says "do what's right, based on our ideas/values."
I hope that clears things up.
EDIT: There are a lot of Libertarians outside the Libertarian Party. Also, you can dispute the libertarian credentials of some people in it. It's not exactly representative of libertarianism as a whole, therefore.
EDIT: There are a lot of Libertarians outside the Libertarian Party. Also, you can dispute the libertarian credentials of some people in it. It's not exactly representative of libertarianism as a whole, therefore.
And I bet you can dispute the Scotsman credentials of some people in Scotland.
There are different factions inside libertarianism that want different things, just like there are different groups within Conservatism and Liberalism in America today. (If you don't believe me, compare Russell Kirk to Sean Hannidy.) Minarchists are probably the biggest faction (or group of groups) within Libertarianism in America, but they aren't the only ones. Anarchocapitalism, or right anarchism, is also a well-entrenched position in Libertarian thought. Indeed, Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian himself, was an AnCap. To answer Lithl's point, different Libertarians say different things. There seem to be a couple reasons for this:
--Some don't understand the theory, or don't take the time to look it up. I've meet people before who say that they want people to just be able to do whatever they want, but have never heard of the Nonagression principle or Lockean defense of property rights. As such, they can come to a lot of conclusions that are in conflict with libertarianism.
--Some come to libertarianism on utilitarian grounds, and advocate for more freedom because it is useful for societal wellbeing. (That term is honestly just a fancy way of saying "things being more in line with whatever I consider to be good." Thankfully there are a lot of things that most reasonable people agree on. Just about everyone I've ever met would say that it's better for people to be well-fed and enjoying themselves rather than starving and dying, for example.) Because they advocate liberty on the basis of outcomes, not on the principle of the matter, they also can come to conclusions that can conflict with libertarianism. They say essentially "freedom is the way to go because it works." Utilitarian Libertarians can argue that their positions are consistent with libertarianism, with varying degrees of plausibility.
--Some come to libertarianism on basis of the principle of the matter. Starting from the principle that you own yourself and own other stuff, ought not to violate anyone's property rights. The philosophical justifications for this vary. Natural rights theory is the main one, I think, but I may be mistaken, as I haven't been exposed to enough people in the movement to definitively say. Taken to its logical conclusion, this leads to Anarchocapitalism--the theory that since governments,force you to pay taxes without consent or a legitimate ownership of the land and do a number of other things to abridge your rights, that they are inherently in violation of human rights and ought to be eliminated in favor of private companies and charities. Many people who believe in the principle balk at this conclusion, however, and come to minarchism or conservatism as a result. They'll offer justifications for governments' existence, primarily that we need it to survive. This is probably dominant because it is so very intuitive. Thus, conflict among libertarians who believe in libertarianism based on the principle can arise, but it is different from the kinds of disagreements that arise between principle-based libertarians and utilitarianism-based libertarians in that squabbles between principle-based libertarians focus on what policy is implied by libertarian theory and/or values. Utilitarian vs principle on the other hand usually boils down to argument over what justification ought to be used in setting the political structures advocated in libertarian circles: the Utilitarian says "do what works" while the advocate for principle says "do what's right, based on our ideas/values."
I hope that clears things up.
EDIT: There are a lot of Libertarians outside the Libertarian Party. Also, you can dispute the libertarian credentials of some people in it. It's not exactly representative of libertarianism as a whole, therefore.
There are different factions inside libertarianism that want different things, just like there are different groups within Conservatism and Liberalism in America today. (If you don't believe me, compare Russell Kirk to Sean Hannidy.) Minarchists are probably the biggest faction (or group of groups) within Libertarianism in America, but they aren't the only ones. Anarchocapitalism, or right anarchism, is also a well-entrenched position in Libertarian thought. Indeed, Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian himself, was an AnCap. To answer Lithl's point, different Libertarians say different things. There seem to be a couple reasons for this:
--Some don't understand the theory, or don't take the time to look it up. I've meet people before who say that they want people to just be able to do whatever they want, but have never heard of the Nonagression principle or Lockean defense of property rights. As such, they can come to a lot of conclusions that are in conflict with libertarianism.
--Some come to libertarianism on utilitarian grounds, and advocate for more freedom because it is useful for societal wellbeing. (That term is honestly just a fancy way of saying "things being more in line with whatever I consider to be good." Thankfully there are a lot of things that most reasonable people agree on. Just about everyone I've ever met would say that it's better for people to be well-fed and enjoying themselves rather than starving and dying, for example.) Because they advocate liberty on the basis of outcomes, not on the principle of the matter, they also can come to conclusions that can conflict with libertarianism. They say essentially "freedom is the way to go because it works." Utilitarian Libertarians can argue that their positions are consistent with libertarianism, with varying degrees of plausibility.
--Some come to libertarianism on basis of the principle of the matter. Starting from the principle that you own yourself and own other stuff, ought not to violate anyone's property rights. The philosophical justifications for this vary. Natural rights theory is the main one, I think, but I may be mistaken, as I haven't been exposed to enough people in the movement to definitively say. Taken to its logical conclusion, this leads to Anarchocapitalism--the theory that since governments,force you to pay taxes without consent or a legitimate ownership of the land and do a number of other things to abridge your rights, that they are inherently in violation of human rights and ought to be eliminated in favor of private companies and charities. Many people who believe in the principle balk at this conclusion, however, and come to minarchism or conservatism as a result. They'll offer justifications for governments' existence, primarily that we need it to survive. This is probably dominant because it is so very intuitive. Thus, conflict among libertarians who believe in libertarianism based on the principle can arise, but it is different from the kinds of disagreements that arise between principle-based libertarians and utilitarianism-based libertarians in that squabbles between principle-based libertarians focus on what policy is implied by libertarian theory and/or values. Utilitarian vs principle on the other hand usually boils down to argument over what justification ought to be used in setting the political structures advocated in libertarian circles: the Utilitarian says "do what works" while the advocate for principle says "do what's right, based on our ideas/values."
I hope that clears things up.
EDIT: There are a lot of Libertarians outside the Libertarian Party. Also, you can dispute the libertarian credentials of some people in it. It's not exactly representative of libertarianism as a whole, therefore.
How would you define correct libertarianism?
It's tough to define "correct" Libertarinism, because I think that there is a difference between logical inconsistency and flat out not being Libertarian. I think it's a grey line. I would say, for example, that Ron Paul is logically inconsistent because he upholds the nonagression principle, property rights, etc. but still supports the state. While he isn't consistent, though, I do believe that he counts as a Libertarian, because he advocates individualism, freedom, and all the rest of it.
So if you're looking for a brite line, I can't think of one. It seems like a judgment call, really. There are disqualifications I can give you. If you support socialism, that is a pretty clear indicator of a non-Libertarian, since socialism is indicative of central planning and expropriation of people. Advocating for expansion of government in general, really, is a pretty clear un-Libertarian tell that you can use for classification.
There are really two theories here: one says "either you're libertarian or you aren't" and the other says "some people are more libertarian than others." I was originally of the first school of thought, but I am more and more inclined to the second, simply because it is more clear-cut than the first one. What is "more libertarian" may sound arbitrary, but in practice it's generally pretty easy to tell. Libertarian Anarchists, for example, are pretty clearly "more libertarian" than Libertarian Minarchists" because they are for less governemnt and more individual freedom. By this measure, for example, Tom Woods is quite clearly more libertarian than Austin Peterson. This classification scheme is therefore much, much easier to use. The problem with this approach is that people can feel like their legitimacy as libertarians is questioned when they are called "less libertarian." Indeed, they will then try to turn things around by arguing that the "more libertarian" position is whatever more people who call themselves libertarians think. This turns a perfectly good metric for classifying ideological differences into a bout of name-calling and in-fighting. So if you say "either you're libertarian or you're not," then you're using a vague standard with no obvious cut-off point, and if you say "some are more libertarian than others," then you're going to step on peoples' toes.
So at the end of the day, who is and is not "Libertarian" is a matter of opinion.
There are really two theories here: one says "either you're libertarian or you aren't" and the other says "some people are more libertarian than others." I was originally of the first school of thought, but I am more and more inclined to the second, simply because it is more clear-cut than the first one.
I think it should be obvious that libertarianism is a scale that many people fall at different points on, just like liberalism and conservatism. You can cut the categories finer, for example a fiscally conservative scale, but none of it is black and white.
Given that, when discussing political positions in the United States, I find it reasonable to take the Libertarian Party's positions as a "default" libertarian position. Individuals considered to be libertarians could be more or less libertarian than the declared platform of the party, but to discuss the ideology, you don't get very far if you say "libertarians believe everything" -- you need a starting place for the discussion. The party seems like a great starting place to me. And that starting place wants small government at both federal and state level, which is a description of the libertarian position that is at odds with the position as defined by Oopssorryy.
Taking the same starting position for republicans, they want small federal and larger state government, which is the position Oopssorryy espoused, hence my comment "You seem to be confusing Libertarians with Republicans."
Monopolies are only bad if the monopoly raises prices too high. In that case, competition would re-enter the market.
In the case of cartels, it is beneficial to a business involved in one to cheat by going against the terms of the cartel.
If there is a monopoly on a source of water in an area, which would be unlikely because people living in that area shouldve realized the possibility of such a monopoly occuring and made previous arrangements before moving in, the business with that monopoly would have to compete with trucks that could bring water to that area. The people living in that area could also move away to a place where they know that such a situation could not occur because of previous contract.
Monopolies are only bad if the monopoly raises prices too high. In that case, competition would re-enter the market.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a monopoly is and does. What's to stop the monopoly from dropping their prices low enough kill the competition, then raising them back up again. This is what happens in real life. No one unilaterally decided that monopolies are bad just because.
In the case of cartels, it is beneficial to a business involved in one to cheat by going against the terms of the cartel.
It isn't, actually. That's the whole point, they agree upon mutually beneficial deals, and will actively punish any who don't go along with the cartel agreement.
If there is a monopoly on a source of water in an area, which would be unlikely because people living in that area shouldve realized the possibility of such a monopoly occuring and made previous arrangements before moving in, the business with that monopoly would have to compete with trucks that could bring water to that area. The people living in that area could also move away to a place where they know that such a situation could not occur because of previous contract.
Lol. Do the words "Flint Water Crisis" mean anything to you?
In the case of cartels, it is beneficial to a business involved in one to cheat by going against the terms of the cartel.
Imagine you're a member of a cartel. For the sake of concreteness, let's say you're a member of a Mexican drug cartel. These are, after all, real-world examples of organizations operating outside the bounds of the law to sell a product to consumers.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that it is in your interest to betray the cartel of which you're a member. That this will be a good, wise, healthy, not-at-all-leading-to-torture-and-a-shallow-grave choice for you.
...which would be unlikely because people living in that area shouldve realized the possibility of such a monopoly occuring and made previous arrangements before moving in...
The "previous arrangement" people generally make is the establishment of a democratic government and police force.
The people living in that area could also move away to a place where they know that such a situation could not occur because of previous contract.
Whenever I suggest to libertarians that if they don't like living under a government, they can just move, they complain that their home and family and friends and stuff are all where they are and they shouldn't have to move.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a monopoly is and does. What's to stop the monopoly from dropping their prices low enough kill the competition, then raising them back up again. This is what happens in real life.
Whenever it raises prices back up again people will buy from a source not as expensive.
Imagine you're a member of a cartel. For the sake of concreteness, let's say you're a member of a Mexican drug cartel. These are, after all, real-world examples of organizations operating outside the bounds of the law to sell a product to consumers.
Bad example, drug cartels are in active competition, which means there are no monopoly prices charged for drugs(although the prices are high due to the risky nature of the illegal drug business and drugs arent illegal in ancap society).
Whenever I suggest to libertarians that if they don't like living under a government, they can just move, they complain that their home and family and friends and stuff are all where they are and they shouldn't have to move.
You did not specify an anarcho-capitalistic society in your post, and Blinking Spirit's second point you responded to with this clearly had nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a monopoly is and does. What's to stop the monopoly from dropping their prices low enough kill the competition, then raising them back up again. This is what happens in real life.
Whenever it raises prices back up again people will buy from a source not as expensive.
Not if, as the notion you just responded to states, the original dropping of prices killed the competition. New competition has to spend a lot of time and work to arise, and as soon as it becomes threatening, the monopoly can drop prices again and kill them, and because they have an established dominance of the market they can afford to drop their prices much more than still developing competitors. So people stop trying to compete because it's commercial suicide.
In the case of cartels, it is beneficial to a business involved in one to cheat by going against the terms of the cartel.
Imagine you're a member of a cartel. For the sake of concreteness, let's say you're a member of a Mexican drug cartel. These are, after all, real-world examples of organizations operating outside the bounds of the law to sell a product to consumers.
Modern drug cartels aren't actually cartels. The name is a legacy from when the cocain trade actually did operate as a cartel, but that's no longer the case.
Bad example, drug cartels are in active competition, which means there are no monopoly prices charged for drugs(although the prices are high due to the risky nature of the illegal drug business and drugs arent illegal in ancap society).
We're not talking about monopoly prices, we're talking about actions taken against competition. You say drugs aren't illegal, but that's because there are no laws. Drug cartels already operate as if there were no laws. So if you want to see what happens in a market when there are no laws, look at the drug cartels. Take-home point: competition becomes very violent very fast.
Did you forget about private rights enforcements agencies?
Of course not. Those machetes and AK-47s aren't going to wield themselves. You gotta hire guys to do your killing for you. They're even called "enforcers".
The "previous arrangement" people generally make is the establishment of a democratic government and police force.
Not An Argument against AnarchoCapitalism
Wait. Are you now claiming the establishment of a democratic government and police force is consistent with anarcho-capitalism? Because unless you're claiming that, what I said is a pretty direct argument against anarcho-capitalism.
Whenever I suggest to libertarians that if they don't like living under a government, they can just move, they complain that their home and family and friends and stuff are all where they are and they shouldn't have to move.
Not An Argument against AnarchoCapitalism
So you accept as valid what we might call the Just Move Principle: "If you don't like it, just move"? You'll stop complaining about having to pay taxes because if you don't want to pay them, you can just move?
Modern drug cartels aren't actually cartels. The name is a legacy from when the cocain trade actually did operate as a cartel, but that's no longer the case.
And if you betrayed the cartel, what do you think would happen to you?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a monopoly is and does. What's to stop the monopoly from dropping their prices low enough kill the competition, then raising them back up again. This is what happens in real life.
Whenever it raises prices back up again people will buy from a source not as expensive.
And how are they planning on transporting the water to the town. If you are going to suggest trucking it in again I have 1 word for you. Landmines....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
That's why society should generally be modelled to promote the greatest possible collective wellbeing. If some few people pose a threat to many others wellbeing then infringing on those peoples wellbeing to protect the others make sense. As is this case with things like fines and imprisonment.
They didn't just care more their idea of society than certain individuals wellbeing, but more than the collective wellbeing of society. They made things worse overall, for millions, not just for some people.
The collective wellbeing of society is more important than any political philosophy, if for no other reason than that's what most political philosophies are supposed to promote.
They killed millions over a period of decades. It wasn't 'oops, we did a terrible thing', they knew what they were doing and kept doing it. That displays a lack of empathy.
These other things certainly were relevant to the problems, but the problems wouldn't have gone on for as long as they did as obviously as they did if not for a lack of concern for peoples wellbeing.
Absolutely. Modern day countries have already implemented socialistic policies to desirable effect, especially- with regards to the extent of socialistic policy- some of the European countries following a social democracy model.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
But what collective wellbeing is ? The point is: defining wellbeing (specially "collective wellbeing") is already engaging in political ideology. So you can't care for one more then other.
The communists, inside their own philosophy, did not make things worse as "irrational" consumption is not what they consider wellbeing. For then, for example, simply eliminating unemployment by the virtue of being a planned economy made life better for everyone.
To make my point very clear - I challenge the existence of a non-political definition of society's wellbeing.
The problem had gone as far as they did because solutions are hard to come up and once you have then they are hard to implement. We don't change things because we know they aren't working - we change then because we believe we found better alternatives.
There is plenty of concern for people's welfare in the current Cuban government - as they always are in most government offices. The issue is not that bureaucrats are heartless, it's that they don't know what to do. And no one knows to be honest.
My take is that things are not that simple. The successful social democracies like Sweden and Canada never really had social issues in the same scale as countries like the US, Latin America and Asian countries. It means that for then things like socialized education and healthcare are not as expansive.
In Latin American the same welfare model have been tried several times, to very little success. It could be for many other factors, but it's my belief that it's just not viable to ask for 5% of the population to pay for everyone housing, healthcare and education. It will just not work.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You can define wellbeing (collective wellbeing is referring to basically just the average wellbeing of people in a state) without defining a political philosophy. The question of what wellbeing means is ethical not political, and doesn't define any particular political viewpoint.
Wellbeing is a fairly practical affair. You can put fairly simple measurements to it because it's pretty much just subjective individual experience- being healthy, being emotionally and intellectually fulfilled, being relatively safe- things that can be measured or otherwise analysed at fairly high level.
You don't get to decide what makes people happy, healthy or comfortable.
I am not talking about society's wellbeing- I am talking about the personal wellbeing of the people in a society.
They put tens of thousands people in forced labour camps for political dissent or lack of work ethic and letting the camps be run often largely people imprisoned there.
How do you stop all the suffering that occurred as a result? Stop putting so many people into intentionally deplorable conditions. It's a prison system, it's designed to cause some amount of suffering.
(That wasn't all they did though)
I'm not saying all forms of communism government have, at least, the same extent of problems as the Soviet Union did.
All I'm saying is socialistic policies have had beneficial effects in various modern countries and the European social democracy countries are a good example to show this because they have a large number of socialistic policies.
I'm not saying here that socialistic policies always improve things or that the European social democracy countries are better than other countries because of it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Social issues inside the "party" get murky, as while most believe in equal rights for all, some believe that it's not up to the Fed to pass laws concerning these equal rights as long as peoples core rights aren't being violated. These people believe that it is the states right to doing ban or legalize things like gay marriage, or abortion rights. The argument against this is, any infringement of equal rights is a violation of the Ninth Amendment. As far as I've seen, this seems to be the issue American Libertarians argue the most. Not if they should have equal rights, but who gets to make the laws to grant equal rights.
It seems as if we've co-opted a work that has nothing to do with many of the values we actually believe in. Sounds about par for the course if I'm perfectly honest.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I understand that Republicans state many of the ideals I feel are synonymous with American Libertarianism, their actions haven't always reflected this. No matter what party has controlled the US government in the recent past, the Federal Government has grown and grown, in both power and scope. I also believe that the Republican party is reacting to the rise in what I deem as Libertarian beliefs. They seem to be adopting many of these values, changing to attempt to meet the change in public ideals. I know many whom feel like the Republican party took over things like the Tea Party for their own gains, while not actually furthering or supporting the Tea Parties goals. Now, one of the Libertarian "god fathers" Ron Paul, did run as a Republican in order to garner support from the larger party, his rhetoric and ideals where and are vastly different from his Republican peers, even though several of his talking points seemed to fall under the Republican banner. The Republicans have not supported their supposed position on strengthening the state and local governments over the larger Federal body with any real action in a long time. I think this is why things like the Tea party and the Libertarian party have started to gain support. Feed up with the empty promises of the Republican party, many are looking for a party that may actually try to follow through.
Now on whether or not such a system is do able in today's age is up for debate. You can argue the Republicans had to abandon the idea in practice because it didn't work. The founding fathers tried a system more like what many Libertarians wanted, and it failed, with only Jefferson standing strong in what he wanted. I think the US government could learn a lot from something like the EU. In many ways it is structured like a Federal Republic. The individual countries inside the EU have vast freedoms in law and policy, but have a centralized government that can make laws that affect the whole of the Union. However, that feels like a subject for another thread, as this one seems to be more centralized on the ideologies of Libertarianism over what it's political party stands for.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
That's weird, as far as I've seen the libertarian party spends its time arguing over whether you should be able to sell heroine to children.
Can you defend this or are you just throwing this out there? I've seen no evidence prior to this point, confirmed or unconfirmed, to support this point.
This was a question during the 2016 debate. Derryl Perry said heroine should be as legal as tomatoes, and he was met with raucous applause. Austin Peterson said that he supports state-level laws that say "you should not be able to sell heroine to a five year old". He was met with boos.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?409916-1/libertarian-party-holds-presidential-debate&start=7296
Question is asked at about 1:58:00
Here's the clip with just Peterson's answer and the boos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Nad1b_3yY
These are the issues that the party deems contentious enough to warrant a segment of their presidential debate.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
--Some don't understand the theory, or don't take the time to look it up. I've meet people before who say that they want people to just be able to do whatever they want, but have never heard of the Nonagression principle or Lockean defense of property rights. As such, they can come to a lot of conclusions that are in conflict with libertarianism.
--Some come to libertarianism on utilitarian grounds, and advocate for more freedom because it is useful for societal wellbeing. (That term is honestly just a fancy way of saying "things being more in line with whatever I consider to be good." Thankfully there are a lot of things that most reasonable people agree on. Just about everyone I've ever met would say that it's better for people to be well-fed and enjoying themselves rather than starving and dying, for example.) Because they advocate liberty on the basis of outcomes, not on the principle of the matter, they also can come to conclusions that can conflict with libertarianism. They say essentially "freedom is the way to go because it works." Utilitarian Libertarians can argue that their positions are consistent with libertarianism, with varying degrees of plausibility.
--Some come to libertarianism on basis of the principle of the matter. Starting from the principle that you own yourself and own other stuff, ought not to violate anyone's property rights. The philosophical justifications for this vary. Natural rights theory is the main one, I think, but I may be mistaken, as I haven't been exposed to enough people in the movement to definitively say. Taken to its logical conclusion, this leads to Anarchocapitalism--the theory that since governments,force you to pay taxes without consent or a legitimate ownership of the land and do a number of other things to abridge your rights, that they are inherently in violation of human rights and ought to be eliminated in favor of private companies and charities. Many people who believe in the principle balk at this conclusion, however, and come to minarchism or conservatism as a result. They'll offer justifications for governments' existence, primarily that we need it to survive. This is probably dominant because it is so very intuitive. Thus, conflict among libertarians who believe in libertarianism based on the principle can arise, but it is different from the kinds of disagreements that arise between principle-based libertarians and utilitarianism-based libertarians in that squabbles between principle-based libertarians focus on what policy is implied by libertarian theory and/or values. Utilitarian vs principle on the other hand usually boils down to argument over what justification ought to be used in setting the political structures advocated in libertarian circles: the Utilitarian says "do what works" while the advocate for principle says "do what's right, based on our ideas/values."
I hope that clears things up.
EDIT: There are a lot of Libertarians outside the Libertarian Party. Also, you can dispute the libertarian credentials of some people in it. It's not exactly representative of libertarianism as a whole, therefore.
And I bet you can dispute the Scotsman credentials of some people in Scotland.
How would you define correct libertarianism?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
It's tough to define "correct" Libertarinism, because I think that there is a difference between logical inconsistency and flat out not being Libertarian. I think it's a grey line. I would say, for example, that Ron Paul is logically inconsistent because he upholds the nonagression principle, property rights, etc. but still supports the state. While he isn't consistent, though, I do believe that he counts as a Libertarian, because he advocates individualism, freedom, and all the rest of it.
So if you're looking for a brite line, I can't think of one. It seems like a judgment call, really. There are disqualifications I can give you. If you support socialism, that is a pretty clear indicator of a non-Libertarian, since socialism is indicative of central planning and expropriation of people. Advocating for expansion of government in general, really, is a pretty clear un-Libertarian tell that you can use for classification.
There are really two theories here: one says "either you're libertarian or you aren't" and the other says "some people are more libertarian than others." I was originally of the first school of thought, but I am more and more inclined to the second, simply because it is more clear-cut than the first one. What is "more libertarian" may sound arbitrary, but in practice it's generally pretty easy to tell. Libertarian Anarchists, for example, are pretty clearly "more libertarian" than Libertarian Minarchists" because they are for less governemnt and more individual freedom. By this measure, for example, Tom Woods is quite clearly more libertarian than Austin Peterson. This classification scheme is therefore much, much easier to use. The problem with this approach is that people can feel like their legitimacy as libertarians is questioned when they are called "less libertarian." Indeed, they will then try to turn things around by arguing that the "more libertarian" position is whatever more people who call themselves libertarians think. This turns a perfectly good metric for classifying ideological differences into a bout of name-calling and in-fighting. So if you say "either you're libertarian or you're not," then you're using a vague standard with no obvious cut-off point, and if you say "some are more libertarian than others," then you're going to step on peoples' toes.
So at the end of the day, who is and is not "Libertarian" is a matter of opinion.
Given that, when discussing political positions in the United States, I find it reasonable to take the Libertarian Party's positions as a "default" libertarian position. Individuals considered to be libertarians could be more or less libertarian than the declared platform of the party, but to discuss the ideology, you don't get very far if you say "libertarians believe everything" -- you need a starting place for the discussion. The party seems like a great starting place to me. And that starting place wants small government at both federal and state level, which is a description of the libertarian position that is at odds with the position as defined by Oopssorryy.
Taking the same starting position for republicans, they want small federal and larger state government, which is the position Oopssorryy espoused, hence my comment "You seem to be confusing Libertarians with Republicans."
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
In the case of cartels, it is beneficial to a business involved in one to cheat by going against the terms of the cartel.
If there is a monopoly on a source of water in an area, which would be unlikely because people living in that area shouldve realized the possibility of such a monopoly occuring and made previous arrangements before moving in, the business with that monopoly would have to compete with trucks that could bring water to that area. The people living in that area could also move away to a place where they know that such a situation could not occur because of previous contract.
It isn't, actually. That's the whole point, they agree upon mutually beneficial deals, and will actively punish any who don't go along with the cartel agreement.
Lol. Do the words "Flint Water Crisis" mean anything to you?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Your argument, as I understand it, is that it is in your interest to betray the cartel of which you're a member. That this will be a good, wise, healthy, not-at-all-leading-to-torture-and-a-shallow-grave choice for you.
I am inclined to disagree.
The "previous arrangement" people generally make is the establishment of a democratic government and police force.
Machetes and AK-47s are highly efficient means of competition.
Whenever I suggest to libertarians that if they don't like living under a government, they can just move, they complain that their home and family and friends and stuff are all where they are and they shouldn't have to move.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Whenever it raises prices back up again people will buy from a source not as expensive.
Bad example, drug cartels are in active competition, which means there are no monopoly prices charged for drugs(although the prices are high due to the risky nature of the illegal drug business and drugs arent illegal in ancap society).
Did you forget about private rights enforcements agencies?
Not An Argument against AnarchoCapitalism
Not An Argument against AnarchoCapitalism
You did not specify an anarcho-capitalistic society in your post, and Blinking Spirit's second point you responded to with this clearly had nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism.
Not if, as the notion you just responded to states, the original dropping of prices killed the competition. New competition has to spend a lot of time and work to arise, and as soon as it becomes threatening, the monopoly can drop prices again and kill them, and because they have an established dominance of the market they can afford to drop their prices much more than still developing competitors. So people stop trying to compete because it's commercial suicide.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Of course not. Those machetes and AK-47s aren't going to wield themselves. You gotta hire guys to do your killing for you. They're even called "enforcers".
Wait. Are you now claiming the establishment of a democratic government and police force is consistent with anarcho-capitalism? Because unless you're claiming that, what I said is a pretty direct argument against anarcho-capitalism.
So you accept as valid what we might call the Just Move Principle: "If you don't like it, just move"? You'll stop complaining about having to pay taxes because if you don't want to pay them, you can just move?
And if you betrayed the cartel, what do you think would happen to you?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And how are they planning on transporting the water to the town. If you are going to suggest trucking it in again I have 1 word for you. Landmines....
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru