Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Libertarianism discussion (cleansed)

  1. #1
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Libertarianism discussion (cleansed)

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    if a community which controlled the roads charged other communities to use them, that would be socialism between individuals and capitalism between communities.
    Now I see your point! I must admit that I expect that libertarianism might bring down the concentration of power to smaller unites that compete, but I expected the ones with less "friction" in their markets would win in the end. How do you feel about that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Villain View Post
    Libertarians cannot seem to comprehend the necessary and historically developed relationship between the "free market" and the state. The state must inevitably govern the market precisely because the market cannot govern itself.
    I know you must disagree with me on some points (though we see similar problems) but I am curious about how you view the big picture and the fight of ideologies going on for the last 150/100/50 years. I want you to present your case for.. ..what I think I would call socialism? (Free feel to define the concepts we would use)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    The Social Contract.

    If you have people governing themselves you go back to Genghis Khan times.
    I'm sorry but I don't remember your stance and I am sincerely lost with how to reply as I don't know whether you actually want to talk about the theories on the social contract.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  2. #2
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Now I see your point! I must admit that I expect that libertarianism might bring down the concentration of power to smaller unites that compete, but I expected the ones with less "friction" in their markets would win in the end. How do you feel about that?
    Yes, in groups where cooperators must compete against non-cooperators as individuals, the non-cooperators usually win. But when a group of cooperators competes against a group of non-cooperators, the cooperator group usually wins.



    To answer your second question: I believe that society is capable of following a trajectory where reliance on both government and the market is significantly reduced.

    New technologies like 3D printing could remove dependence on industries. The Internet could remove dependence on rentier middle-men as all transactions can be carried out peer-to-peer. Both are already happening to some extent. People wouldn't need to work as hard in a post-scarcity society with an abundance of material goods and even money would lose most of its value (both directly and as a symbol of personal identification).

    The old American South was a society in which money had relatively little social value because the heavy work was done by a slave class. Nobilities have also tended to eschew identification with their wealth, preferring abstract concepts like honor, bloodline and patina.

    The same deal probably applies to most government expenditures, including welfare programs. With enough resources and, without the need for government grants, groups of people can undertake their own mega projects such as faster than light travel and Matrioshka brains.


    NTL: I still think we need a collective mechanism to enforce laws fairly.



    So yeah.. future predictions are usually way off.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  3. #3
    Marxist Ne’er-do-well Red Villain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Evil Lair
    TIM
    Te-SLI/ xNTJ
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    I know you must disagree with me on some points (though we see similar problems) but I am curious about how you view the big picture and the fight of ideologies going on for the last 150/100/50 years. I want you to present your case for.. ..what I think I would call socialism? (Free feel to define the concepts we would use).
    I'm not sure what you mean by "how you view the big picture...", can you be more specific? I'll be able to provide a better answer once it is clarified, but for now:

    The struggle between various ideologies is the social expression of the contradictions existing between various individuals, and groups of individuals, who belong to various economic conditions. Specifically, the struggle between Socialism and Libertarianism is the modern political expression of the most general social contradiction between the rich and poor.

    I politically identify as Communist in order to distance myself from political Socialists, who are basically out for mere reforms, working within the legal framework to achieve their aims and are practically indistinguishable from Liberals. When we're speaking of socialism/communism as economic systems, they are essentially synonymous, differing only in terms of socio-economic development (e.g. Mercantile to Industrial capitalism).
    "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".

  4. #4
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I want to keep this thread polite, concise and clean from bitter back-and-forth and so far I really like how it has been.

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Villain View Post
    I politically identify as Communist in order to distance myself from political Socialists, who are basically out for mere reforms, working within the legal framework to achieve their aims and are practically indistinguishable from Liberals. When we're speaking of socialism/communism as economic systems, they are essentially synonymous, differing only in terms of socio-economic development (e.g. Mercantile to Industrial capitalism).
    What do you think would be necessary to bring about the society you prefer?
    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    NTL: I still think we need a collective mechanism to enforce laws fairly.
    Hmm, why do you prefer monopolized justice?
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  5. #5
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Hmm, why do you prefer monopolized justice?
    b / c the alternative is no justice system. justice, by definition, requires a consistent set of principles that applies to everyone in exactly the same way.

    nobody could be held accountable if both parties decided what was in their best interests. physical violence ( ie. a feud ) would be the goto method of resolving disputes.

    to see this principle in action, look into the history of international law, or the lack thereof, and the sad result of unchecked sectarianism.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  6. #6
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    b / c the alternative is no justice system. justice, by definition, requires a consistent set of principles that applies to everyone in exactly the same way.
    I believe the government isn't doing a good job on it either. Monopolized justice and security is also a dangerous position that seems to lead to tyranny, even if backed by a Constitution as has happened in the USA.
    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    physical violence ( ie. a feud ) would be the goto method of resolving disputes.
    I think willing participants can engage in duels to resolve disputes but private security that constantly wages wars with their rivals is unable to compete with ones that have more peaceful cooperation with their rivals using 3rd party arbiters agreed by both sides.
    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    to see this principle in action, look into the history of international law, or the lack thereof, and the sad result of unchecked sectarianism.
    Can you point out some?
    Lex mercatoria seems pretty functional. And it's of private origins.

    F.J.P. Veale describes the 15th century Italy:
    the rich burghers and merchants of medieval
    Italy were too busy making money and enjoying
    life to undertake the hardships and dangers
    of soldiering themselves. So they adopted the
    practice of hiring mercenaries to do their fighting
    for them, and, being thrifty, businesslike
    folk, they dismissed their mercenaries immediately
    after their services could be dispensed
    with. Wars were, therefore, fought by armies
    hired for each campaign. . . . For the first time,
    soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively
    harmless profession. The generals of that
    period maneuvered against each other, often
    with consummate skill, but when one had won
    the advantage, his opponent generally either
    retreated or surrendered. It was a recognized
    rule that a town could only be sacked if it offered
    resistance: immunity could always be purchased
    by paying a ransom. . . . As one natural consequence,
    no town ever resisted, it being obvious
    that a government too weak to defend its citizens
    had forfeited their allegiance. Civilians had
    little to fear from the dangers of war which were
    the concern only of professional soldiers.
    Last edited by Aquagraph; 04-01-2014 at 03:12 PM.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  7. #7
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    I believe the government isn't doing a good job on it either. Monopolized justice and security is also a dangerous position that seems to lead to tyranny, even if backed by a Constitution as has happened in the USA.
    I think willing participants can engage in duels to resolve disputes but private security that constantly wages wars with their rivals is in order to give them more rights is unable to compete with ones that have more peaceful cooperation with their rivals using 3rd party arbiters agreed by both sides.
    This sort of justice exists in tribal societies that lack a government, but feuds (incl. blood feuds, to avenge a death of a family member) are also very common. Not everyone is willing to behave cooperatively or accept a toothless ruling, regardless of what naive theories on human nature have to say.

    Organized religion spreads like wildfire in decentralized societies to offer order that transcends tribal affiliation.


    Can you point out some?
    For starters, Europe circa. 1914-1918.


    Lex mercatoria seems pretty functional. And it's of private origins.

    F.J.P. Veale describes the 15th century Italy:
    the rich burghers and merchants of medieval
    Italy were too busy making money and enjoying
    life to undertake the hardships and dangers
    of soldiering themselves. So they adopted the
    practice of hiring mercenaries to do their fighting
    for them, and, being thrifty, businesslike
    folk, they dismissed their mercenaries immediately
    after their services could be dispensed
    with. Wars were, therefore, fought by armies
    hired for each campaign. . . . For the first time,
    soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively
    harmless profession. The generals of that
    period maneuvered against each other, often
    with consummate skill, but when one had won
    the advantage, his opponent generally either
    retreated or surrendered. It was a recognized
    rule that a town could only be sacked if it offered
    resistance: immunity could always be purchased
    by paying a ransom. . . . As one natural consequence,
    no town ever resisted, it being obvious
    that a government too weak to defend its citizens
    had forfeited their allegiance. Civilians had
    little to fear from the dangers of war which were
    the concern only of professional soldiers.
    Yeah.. mercenary armies frequently plunder(ed) the shit out of land that didn't resist.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  8. #8
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    New technologies like 3D printing could remove dependence on industries.
    Sorry, what about industries that produce 3-d printers?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  9. #9
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @xerx and others
    Why are states against people seceding with their property from the state? If some people bought, say, Detroit and wanted to secede would you want the US government to maintain their control in there?

    I respect your right to opinions but I would never use violence to enforce my opinions.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  10. #10
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Sorry, what about industries that produce 3-d printers?
    3D printers printing 3D printers, maybe? Self-rep is trying to do exactly that with their machine that keeps on evolving.
    Human innovation
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  11. #11
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Sorry, what about industries that produce 3-d printers?
    3d printers can manufacture themselves. n/m aqua beat me to it.


    Why are states against people seceding with their property from the state? If some people bought, say, Detroit and wanted to secede would you want the US government to maintain their control in there?
    no one person should have the right to "buy" detroit since it's full of people
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  12. #12
    Marxist Ne’er-do-well Red Villain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Evil Lair
    TIM
    Te-SLI/ xNTJ
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    I want to keep this thread polite, concise and clean from bitter back-and-forth and so far I really like how it has been.

    What do you think would be necessary to bring about the society you prefer?
    A revolutionary movement that seizes control and centralizes all financial institutions, property and industry; production to be regulated on a local, regional, national and, eventually, an international basis . How that would come about will vary from every country and isn't entirely up to people, but is sensitive to the economic/political conditions prevailing at the given time. Though it should be noted, this process is already taking place as fewer and fewer conglomerates come to dominate the market. Simply expropriating the DOW industries would bring us half-way there.
    "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".

  13. #13
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Villain View Post
    A revolutionary movement that seizes control and centralizes all financial institutions, property and industry; production to be regulated on a local, regional, national and, eventually, an international basis . How that would come about will vary from every country and isn't entirely up to people, but is sensitive to the economic/political conditions prevailing at the given time. Though it should be noted, this process is already taking place as fewer and fewer conglomerates come to dominate the market. Simply expropriating the DOW industries would bring us half-way there.
    Hmm. USSR and others weren't a great success. What went wrong? How will this be avoided?
    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    no one person should have the right to "buy" detroit since it's full of people
    But if those people are willing to sell a part of it? Okay, another place that is fully owned by a bunch of libertarians willing to try a project like this?
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  14. #14
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    But if those people are willing to sell a part of it? Okay, another place that is fully owned by a bunch of libertarians willing to try a project like this?
    that's different. they should be able to do whatever they wanted in that case. i wouldn't recommend it, personally
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  15. #15
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    that's different. they should be able to do whatever they wanted in that case. i wouldn't recommend it, personally
    Why do you think almost every state opposes this?
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  16. #16
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Why do you think almost every state opposes this?
    any of tens of reasons depending on the people in charge and the situation. it's too broad a question

    for power, some politician's careerism, for ethnic sectarian populist reasons, to ensure the public safety, for ideological reasons (different ideology in the part that splits), to avoid collapse of an integrated economic system, to prevent fragmentation (which would lead to a weaker front vs. the threat of annexation from a neighbour), etc.

    EDIT: and nationalism.

    which is a natural extension of the human tendency to form groups
    Last edited by xerx; 04-02-2014 at 02:01 PM.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  17. #17
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @xerx, as far as I understood, you don't like big government either. How do you ensure that the government doesn't expand to the (often belligerent) police state that answers to no one, doesn't really reform and that takes half of what you make (which most western democracies are now imho)?

    which is a natural extension of the human tendency to form groups
    Those groups are often socially limited to around 150. I don't believe we are naturally inclined to nationalism, but we do form cultural associations with people inside an arbitrary line. The state uniforms this strongly because of it's tendency to give out one-size-solutions-fits-all that take a stranglehold on many cultural aspects, especially since the worldwide rise of nationalized socialism (I don't mean nazism) as opposed by culturally neutral republicanism (I don't mean GOP).
    Last edited by Aquagraph; 04-02-2014 at 05:06 PM.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  18. #18
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    @xerx, as far as I understood, you don't like big government either. How do you ensure that the government doesn't expand to the (often belligerent) police state that answers to no one, doesn't really reform and that takes half of what you make (which most western democracies are now imho)?

    Those groups are often socially limited to around 150. I don't believe we are naturally inclined to nationalism, but we do form cultural associations with people inside an arbitrary line. The state uniforms this strongly because of it's tendency to give out one-size-solutions-fits-all that take a stranglehold on many cultural aspects, especially since the worldwide rise of nationalized socialism (I don't mean nazism) as opposed by culturally neutral republicanism (I don't mean GOP).
    it most certainly reforms. Sweden, UK and the US of 2014 are radically more democratic than in 1814. i don't think it's a question of big or small government. i think the issue is transparent government whose actions can be cross-examined by an active citizenry vs. an opaque institution which can cloak its actions.


    it's also not a question of the number of freedoms. today's citizens enjoy different types of freedoms than their predecessors. there's more bureaucracy and more laws that restrict free agency, but there's also less fear of theft and less fear of discrimination.


    women are afraid to walk alone in the streets in many third world countries because reliable law enforcement doesn't exist to prevent rape. they need men. this is not just true of the muslim world. western women can get naked in the street (sometimes).

    western kids are far less dependent on their families' approval and can move out. that's in stark contrast to societies where loyalty to family traditions takes precedence because of the need for mutual protection.

    the differences aren't ad hoc. these societies are more collectivist and conformist because people are more interdependent.

    there are hiccups where traditions persist, like Japan and Korea. But even these are relaxing their attitudes more and more.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •