|
Rhjamiz posted:Why did you point this out if it is, indeed, obvious? I would assume that, since you bothered to mention it, you have something to say regarding it. It's not the left that has trouble disassociating economic value with moral worth, it's that this is the sole means by which a libertarian society judges people, and unsurprisingly, Libertopia would let these people starve. This thread brings it up because this is an uncomfortable truth that many libertarians do not wish to engage with. The common response I get from most of them on the subject is that any mention of starvation of those of low "value", is that it's irrelevant and an appeal to emotion fallacy.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:This is the Econ 1-est post. Do costs factor into prices? Yes. Does it follow that raising some costs by a set amount would lead to a rise in the price of goods and/or services? No. You can't contradict yourself here - either costs generally correlate to prices or they don't. That, or you need to differentiate between money spent on labor and money spent on other costs. Either because they do other things right which lets them survive despite high labor costs, because they get some benefit from higher wages (like lower turnover and better customer service) or because they are somehow an exception to the general trend. Rhjamiz posted:Why did you point this out if it is, indeed, obvious? I would assume that, since you bothered to mention it, you have something to say regarding it. It's not the left that has trouble disassociating economic value with moral worth, it's that this is the sole means by which a libertarian society judges people, and unsurprisingly, Libertopia would let these people starve. This thread brings it up because this is an uncomfortable truth that many libertarians do not wish to engage with. Because people were making statements contradicting it like this? Karia posted:The idea that someone can only produce $6 per hour is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because people were making statements contradicting it like this? They're talking about able-bodied, full-time minimum-wage employees, not a sick or disabled octogenarian. The statement being made is that it is ridiculous to take minimum wage (or less than) and then claim that this is the value these people produce, ergo this is what they should be paid, regardless of whether or not it is a living wage. It is (probably) very demonstrable that the average minimum wage worker produces far more value than he or she is valued in turn. Edit: Like, to be clear, imagine if we were talking about running. "It is ridiculous to claim that a person's top speed is only ever 8mph." "Yes well, some people have no legs." While technically correct, it is utterly irrelevant to the point being made and also makes you look kinda dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Also consider that libertarian drug policy and the effect that would have on related crime. Progressive drug policy would have the same effect. You're not going to find any liberals here who disagree with libertarian drug policy, it's the same as liberal drug policy. Likewise with foreign wars: progressives don't like wars any more than libertarians do. You keep making these little tangential remarks that are clearly meant to imply that you have to be libertarian if you're anti-war, anti-torture, or pro-legalization, but they just fall flat because the non-libertarians here already hold those beliefs and aren't that easily fooled. So instead of discussing red herrings like this one, let's discuss libertarian principles that are not shared by progressives QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Not sure this is really worth going into to any length, since I doubt we will find any common ground on the idea that taxation is inherently universally legitimate and that the amount of personal property that the government can lay claim to is up to and including 100%. It's not. There's a difference between "100% government ownership of property is problematic and a functional society will recognise this" and "100% government ownership of property is FUNDAMENTALLY MORALLY WRONG." All property rights are illusory and arbitrary. They're the end result of a bunch of tribes of evolved monkeys deciding that there was a better way of deciding who got the tasty fruit and the best cave than who had the biggest club. Property rights recognise that collectively we can make a decision about ownership that society will enforce, whether through law or simply through the social contract. That there are things we will recognise as "yours" because I want people to recognise what is "mine" and everything works out nicely if we do that. They are not, I repeat not, some sort of inherent moral force to the universe that can be defined through inflexible axioms. Property rights exist because we create them. There is and will always be debate over the extent to which property is recognised, and it works a whole lot better if you have a consistent system of law behind them, but they are still fabricated, and within that, the amount of property the government can lay claim to is absolutely up to and including 100%. Would that work well? Nope. Not even the Soviet Union laid claim to 100% of property. That's the only argument, though - it wouldn't work well. It would likely be fragile and unsustainable. That's not a moral imperative, though, aside from it maybe involving some gross abuses of actual human rights (which is also true of a minarchist society). There is zero moral ground for claiming any sort of limitation on collective ownership, whether it's 0% or 100%. Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:49
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I've brought this up to libertarians in person, but I haven't been able to articulate it in writing before because it is impossible to explain to people who were brought up middle class: in your perfect system, I kill you and take your stuff. Over the internet, this sounds like bluster but a good point was brought up: what about people whose labour value is less than a living wage? No, I don't mean the propensity for poor people to commit more property crime. If defending private property is a job, and private property is only private because people are willing to protect it with their life for money, there is also property that isn't worth defending and people who can't eat without taking in more property than they can afford. When responsibility is spread out across an entire government's worth of people, maybe someone robbing me isn't worth the police response but it really helps people on the cusp whose lives and assets would be swept up in the rolling riot I see eating libertopia. I've never seen a credible countervailing force from libertarian literature. The people who would be the DRO would be better served joining the mob and there would be no legal pressure for them not to. The golden horde would happen and I've never met a libertarian who wouldn't be eaten alive. Natural forces like resource scarcity and entropy don't obey the non aggression principal so private property is as moot as the 33 house-mates-with-one-bathroom's right to their own toilet. I've brought this point up before but it bears repeating. The fear of the unknown or what you fantasize will emerge in a society that emphasizes private property rights and the non aggression principle does not in any way validate your support for a clearly immoral system that is actually murdering people in wars, incarcerating millions of people unjustly and otherwise terrorizing a good portion of their population and the population of many other parts of the globe. I've equated this attitude to that of the utilitarian opponent of abolition of slavery in the 19th century. At one time it was incomprehensible to imagine an industrial economy or any society really functioning without slave labor. The future is unknowable so you must chart your course as a species by your emphasis on moral principles and logical consistency. If a human institution is immoral and evil, it should be discarded. The utilitarian concerns are not without merit but they must never be permitted to override ethical concerns and principles. Utilitarian rationalization has bolstered some of the most oppressive and evil institutions and practices that the human race has had to endure. With that said, I will address some of your concerns. In the first place, most of your concerns would be moot if you were addressing the minarchist libertarian, who envisions a night watchman State whose sole purpose is to protect private property, adjudicate disputes and punish those who violate the individual rights of others. Probably more than 80% of libertarians fit this description but since I am an anarchist libertarian, I'll give you my answer. Let's presuppose that private defense agencies and dispute resolution organizations are in the businesses they are in for the purpose of making a profit. Isn't that a supposition that most leftists make about the market economy, that everyone is focused on turning a profit? Well, if that were the case, there would be an overwhelming incentive to NOT wage war between various defense agencies or DROs. War is ALWAYS a losing proposition. What would happen is that each private defense agency and dispute resolution organization would have a contingency plan for a third party arbitrator should the agencies representing different clients come to opposite conclusions about a dispute. Acceptance of a third party arbitrator in such a scenario would be part of the contract that each party signs with the agency that represents them. I can hear your objection now. You might say "what, war is NOT profitable? That goes against all recorded history and the countless wars and war profiteers that have made a good living off of bloodshed." This is true but the difference is that wars are committed by States that have the unique ability to tax their citizens to finance a war effort and, critically, to print paper money to pay off the debts. The war profiteers align with States and make their money through redistributed wealth. By contrast, in a Stateless society there would be no taxes, likely no paper money and any defense agency that was foolish enough to want to wage war on other defense agencies would have to finance their mini war themselves. It would never be a profitable enterprise. If any one agency was foolish enough to try, the other agencies would align together to protect their market and subdue the rogue and likely mentally insane company. There will of course be crime and criminals but they will tend to be made up of the poor and desperate, not established and wealthy businessmen who earned their wealth in a free market and stand to lose a great deal in any prolonged conflict. Now defensive war is another matter entirely. If a foreign nation State was foolish enough to try and conquer a State less territory, a free people who all stand to lose their independence, their prosperity and their way of life will have a great incentive to work together to repel the invading force. Defense agencies will most likely have contracts between them that stipulate a cooperative arrangement should a large foreign Nation State threaten the territory with war. The incentive for an invading State to conquer a Stateless territory would be far less because there is no tax base to take over and profit from, no formal army to surrender and less profit in the exercise. A free people working to defend their own property, as history has shown, are capable of repelling far more powerful armies at a drastically lower cost. What about the people that "fall through the cracks" and don't have representation with a DRO or private defense agency? In the first place since there is no Utopian system, you have to compare the proposed system to an actually existing system. I'm sure you are not so foolhardy as to think that the poor and vulnerable are being treated well in our current State monopolized "justice" system? We incarcerate more people per capita than any nation on the planet and any nation in world history, most often for petty victim-less "crimes" and infractions. Rather than focusing on restitution to the victim of aggression or fraud, our current State "justice" system focuses on alleged crimes against the State, while mostly de-emphasizing crimes with actual victims. If you are a tax evader, you go to jail for a long time. Don't follow the speed limit? A harsh fine and arrest if you resist. If you use a prohibited substance like marijuana or if you sell said substances to willing buyers? You go to jail for a long time. There are too many meaningless and ridiculous victimless alleged "crimes" to count. In contrast to any State run "justice" system that exists or has ever existed, I think it can be easily demonstrated that the libertarian State-less alternative based on restitution to the victim of aggression is a far better and more ethical system. There will surely exist charity dispute resolution organizations and defense agencies. Since safety is a commodity that is universally desired by all members of society it will be to everyone's benefit to see the victim of aggression be "made whole" and the perpetrator of aggressive rights violations be held to account. Therefore there will likely be no shortage of people who will volunteer their time and/or money to promote justice for one of those who is not adequately being served by the market. If you had a rapist on the loose in your neighborhood would you not want to see them punished for their heinous crime? Or would you say, "well, considering the victim was poor and cannot pay a defense agency or DRO for representation I'll just let the criminal live among us without lifting a finger to help." I find it hard to believe that most people wouldn't want to see justice done even for those who are not represented by the market. However, we can expect the market to provide the services of defense and courts far better than any State monopoly and more broadly across society. No voluntarily paying consumer would want to pay to punish someone for smoking a joint or engaging in victim-less behavior. Only a State that can pass the costs on to the expropriated taxpayer could get away with being predatory, with terrorizing innocents who never used aggression against anyone. Talk about a perversion of "justice".
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You can't contradict yourself here - either costs generally correlate to prices or they don't. They generally correlate, exactly as he said. You're trying to say that they always correlate linearly, which is wrong. e: Oh gently caress a jrod post showed up while I was typing this, I'm so excited
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:e: Oh gently caress a jrod post showed up while I was typing this, I'm so excited Why? You already know exactly what he's going to say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:...does not in any way validate your support for a clearly immoral system that is actually murdering people in wars, incarcerating millions of people unjustly and otherwise terrorizing a good portion of their population and the population of many other parts of the globe This is so much better when it is NOT done by a, to some extent, democratic and representative government that we all theoretically have a stake at, but some Corp EvilMastermind Ltd that answers literally to only money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've returned from hiatus. I can't locate my other thread so I'll start on this thread. Real life intruded and I don't have the luxury of posting on random internet forums as much as I might like. In any event, I actually like this forum. While I disagree with most of you, I genuinely find it to be especially well run and the discussions are substantive and interesting. And, evidenced by this thread, you all seem to having more than a passing familiarity with libertarian ideas. Believe it or not most of us actually don't dislike you or necessarily dislike talking to you either. We're all nerds who post in a debate and discussion forum on the internet. Since this is not Ender's Game, we understandably aren't doing so for unlimited world power but out of a genuine desire to actually talk about things.  I apologize in advance for cutting your post at odd places, but I'm trying to keep like with like when it comes to ideas so that I don't repeat myself. quote:With that said, I want to discuss the subject of a minimum wage (or even minimum basic income). From what I have read on this thread, most of you are in favor of a minimum wage and/or basic guaranteed income. I find that support for either belies an ignorance of basic economics. I'd love if you could prove me wrong however. I'd critique you for calling us all ignorant right after saying we make substantive replies, but someone called you a shitheel so we don't exactly have a the moral high ground. quote:I favor an immediate abolition of all minimum wage laws. I don't understand how anyone could imagine that creating an artificial minimum legal wage rate could actually improve anyone's standard of living.A few points. In the first place, a worker will receive an income that is determined by the market. His marketable skills are valued based on the marginal productivity of his labor. If a worker can only provide $9 of value to an employer per hour, why on earth would that employer pay him $10 an hour? Businessmen are not running charities. The businessman is seeking profits which can only be done by satisfying consumer demands on the market. Therefore wages must be lower than the productivity of the labor. The marginal productivity of a laborer provides the upper limit of the wage rate that he or she can expect to receive. What makes you think that most workers have a wage that comes anywhere near what the 'value' the provide to their employer actually is? I touched on this earlier in the thread, but I'm curious why you think that this is the case when historical evidence disagrees with that assumption. For example, we know what productivity was in the 1970's and we also know what the minimum wage was in the 1970's. Most studies suggest that productivity now, per worker, is double or even triple what it was in 1970, yet wages remain stagnant. If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity, it would be at roughly $25 an hour. So how do you explain this? If most workers were paid something approximating their value to their employer, shouldn't wages have been steadily increasing for decades? The amount each worker makes for their company, and thus their value has increased nearly three fold in four decades, but adjusted for inflation wages have barely increased at all, and the minimum wage is even lower than it was in 1970. If on the other hand, most workers are NOT paid anywhere even close to the value that they bring in, that is to say a worker brings in $20 or $30 or $50 while making minimum wage, then we would see what we statistically do see when minimum wage is increased, which is little to no effect on employment. Most businesses simply do not make hiring or firing decisions based on the minimum wage unless we are talking a theoretical minimum wage that is totally out of wack with current conditions like a hypothetical $100 minimum or something. Similarly, what about a worker such as Ben, my local hobby store clerk. He opens the store every sunday from 10-6, and without him the store would not be open. Do you really think that the owner is simply going to close down his store for an entire day because of a $1-5/hour increase in the minimum wage? Do you think that even significantly factors into a budget where roughly 70% of his cost is inventory, 15% is fixed cost and perhaps 10% is labor? quote:I can anticipate that some of you will argue that without a supposed floor for wage rates, the greedy businessmen will simply push wages as low as possible forcing workers to work for 50 cents an hour. The reason this won't happen is that competitive firms, in their competition with each other, will be in need of good workers. If an employer is paying his workers too little for their abilities (i.e. too much lower than the marginal productivity of their labor) then a competitor will bid them away from their current employer. Thus the wage rates for workers will inevitably rise towards the level of their marginal productivity but never exceeding it. This sounds well and good in theory, but the mechanics you are talking about do not exist in a vacuum. People frequently refer to sweeping generalizations like this one as the frictionless surfaces and perfect spheres of the economic world, ie, the 'I took econ 101 and nothing else' effect. The problem is that these basic models where everyone competes and the market is a perfectly functional self regulating machine don't work outside the textbook because people are flawed, flawed creatures. Take for example, the recent Google/Apple Antitrust lawsuit. The short version is that several of the largest silicon valley firms colluded together to depress the wages of their employees by simply refusing to poach or entice employees of their competitors in order to keep the costs of labor down. This real world example flies in the face of everything that you hypothesise would happen and more stunningly occurred in a field of specialized and educated labor. Moreover the issue was only resolved by the intervention of the ever hated 'state'. quote:It is an intellectual error to simply claim that all workers are worth, say, $10 an hour. Frankly I think it is an intellectual error to assume that employers will actually most pay employees what they are worth when recorded history proves that this is not the case. quote:How could you possibly know that? Only a free market for wage labor can possibly determine the per hour value of labor services. What minimum wage laws amount to really is compulsory unemployment, period. The take of most of the posters in this thread would be that the minimum wage for a full time job should be enough for someone to live with dignity. That is absolutely a condition that society is capable of placing upon the marketplace by whatever means at our disposal, be it a mincome, or a minimum wage or whatever. quote:In a free society without a State that erects barriers to economic activity, all economic actors will have far more options than they do today. Just to be clear, you do understand that the state is only one of the myriad of reasons that there can be barriers to entry. I think you do understand that this is true but I want to be absolutely sure. Other examples are things like natural monopolies such as telecommunications where start up costs for simple hardware could be in the hundreds of millions and so forth. Moreover, this is a feel good statement with no real substance. The government puts up barriers to entry and once we knock them down people will have far more options to... not have fire extinguishers on the property? Not provide occupational health and safety protections. Not pay overtime. Fire employees without cause. Brutally suppress unions with everything shy of physical force? Sexually harass employees? quote:So it is furthermore wrong to assume that workers will have no recourse but to work for wages. On the contrary, each worker will have an ability to become an entrepreneur himself, risking his capital for the potential greater reward of future profits. It is a far riskier proposition than trading his labor for wages but without the regulatory barriers and bureaucratic red tape, the cost of entry into the market will be exponentially lower than it is today. Again, this is why I'm asking if you understand that barriers to entry are not the primary fault of government. As just one personal example. In 2010 I briefly flirted with the idea of opening a business before deciding it was unsuitable in the current climate to do so. Do you know how much 'barriers to entry' actually figured into my business plan? Perhaps 1%. Of greater concern were things like, 'eating' and 'massive risk due to debt burden'. To suggest that if we just eliminated the minimum wage and other regulations people would suddenly jump into the market creating businesses is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. You suggest getting rid of all sort of government intervention, but do you think people would be more or less likely to start a business if they knew that they had a social safety net? How about if they know that they have healthcare? When I was pondering my business I didn't even have to consider it, but can you imagine the extra risk I'd be taking if we'd first eliminated my access to universal healthcare and THEN suggested I start a business? quote:A third option would be for workers to organize together and form mutualist coops, where workers pool their resources and collectively own the means of production. This would be an intermediate step between being a wage laborer and an entrepreneur. The potential for return on investment would be greater than that of a wage laborer but less than that of an entrepreneur. However the risk to a personal capital would be far lower than an entrepreneur. It would be, in a very real sense, voluntary socialism or even voluntary Marxism. We do this now. Nothing about this would be unique to your suggested 'minimumwageless' world, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up here other than in an attempt at trying to appear centrist and open minded. Also I've snipped out a quote here and moved it to the bottom because it deserves special attention. quote:Minimum wage laws are immoral, they hurt the least skilled and most vulnerable in society. No they are not, and no they do not. Making sweeping moral generalizations isn't going to win you an argument and I wish you'd understand that. If you said "I feel minimum wage laws are immoral..." I wouldn't even be commenting on this, but you're trying to frame the argument as if you've already won on a point that we BOTH know that you we disagree on. quote:The only genuine way to sustainably raise the standard of living for workers is to improve their marginal productivity, thus allowing them to command a higher wage rate on the market. To this end, it is valuable to encourage young people to gain more work experience when they are younger, develop on the job training and skills that improve their value to employers. Improved skills expand ones economic opportunities. How do you account for the fact that marginal productivity has been going up for decades with no associated increase in wealth for the workers. I'm genuinely curious as to your answer on this issue. Moreover, are you aware that minimum wage jobs are not just for 'young people' anymore? They haven't been for over a decade. The median age of a minimum wage worker is 28. Because of the poor 'trickle down' economic garbage we were sold for a generation many people will be working service jobs like this until they retire, so suggesting they simply increase their value to employers (god does that sound creepy by the way) is not a real fix. quote:I thought this would be a good topic to get back into this discussion. Where am I going wrong? How can you rationally defend minimum wage laws and/or mandatory basic minimum income in light of economic law and logic? Well, in the face of logic... gee I don't know. How can you rationally defend the abolition of a current pillar supporting the poor when recorded history shows that employers can and will abuse works for less than subsistence wages if they can get away with it? quote:All of these economic relationships are valid provided no one uses aggression against any other peaceful person. Okay, this got brought up in the last thread after you left so I'm going to assume you haven't read it. The whole crux of your argument boils down to the idea that aggression is bad, and taxation is theft because its your money, government is aggressing against you etc etc. Libertarians do this in an attempt to frame the debate as them the plucky pacifist up against the big forces of everyone else who wants to impose on them. But when is it okay for you to use force? Well in your theoretical society it is okay for you to use force when someone does it to you first. Typical examples aren't really 'force' per say, but interacting with property. If I walk onto your land and stand there, you have the right to remove me, we both agree with that. You link this in with a whole weird homesteading philosophy, but at the end of the day I propose that the only reason your land is your land in this example is because everyone agrees. Admittedly they agree that your homesteading idea is the basis of property, but it is that communal weight of society that justifies your force as defensive. If everyone didn't agree that the land was yours, then you wouldn't be justified in using force. We know its not simply your philosophy because philosophy doesn't carry that weight. If it did then we'd have examples of real world people using the homesteading philosophy to justify force. So in the above example, if I went onto your land and stood there you could remove me. If I were bigger than you, you could call someone to remove me. If I resisted and say... hurt one of them, I could be put in a cage and if I really resisted I could be killed. Sound familiar? It sure does to me. The difference between Libertarians and 'statists' is not a matter that one things aggression is justified and the other does not. The issue is a matter of who owns what, in the 'statist' case we simply believe that a certain portion of income belongs to the state. And we can do that, because what belongs to who is entirely a subjective issue determined by the rules of the society. Reposting this from a few days ago because the minimum wage is a much more interesting topic than DRO's since the latter is really, really difficult to discuss in any meaningful way since it does not can will not ever exist in reality. I also just really want an answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:They're talking about able-bodied, full-time minimum-wage employees, not a sick or disabled octogenarian. The statement being made is that it is ridiculous to take minimum wage (or less than) and then claim that this is the value these people produce, ergo this is what they should be paid, regardless of whether or not it is a living wage. It is (probably) very demonstrable that the average minimum wage worker produces far more value than he or she is valued in turn. And why does that hold? Does it hold in all geographic locations? Will it always hold in the future? Why is there unemployment if businesses could so obviously hire people at minimum wage (or a living wage if necesary) and earn a profit doing it? Note as I've pointed out it's not about the value they produce, it's about what the alternatives are in the market. Besides other local workers alternatives include machines and cheaper foreign workers. So even if someone might produce $20/hour worth of work there is still no reason to hire them at $15 if a foreign worker can be had for $10, or a machine for $8. (Repeat this surplus is identical to the consumer market where if a bottle of water is worth $1000 to you but the other guy is selling it for $1.50, then $1.50 is what you pay) Those things also factor into their "value". So no, it's not trivial to demonstrate that every worker is worth far more than minimum wage. QuarkJets posted:They generally correlate, exactly as he said. You're trying to say that they always correlate linearly, which is wrong. So there is a general trend where increased costs lead to increased prices right? And labor is a cost right? Am I correct in assuming that you have no light to shed on why we might treat labor costs different from any other cost in regards to its effect on prices. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:War is ALWAYS a losing proposition. No it isn't. There's in fact a tremendous swathe of history where war made both people and countries very, very rich. jrodefeld posted:What would happen is that each private defense agency and dispute resolution organization would have a contingency plan for a third party arbitrator should the agencies representing different clients come to opposite conclusions about a dispute. Acceptance of a third party arbitrator in such a scenario would be part of the contract that each party signs with the agency that represents them. Nothing guarantees this. jrodefeld posted:I can hear your objection now. You might say "what, war is NOT profitable? That goes against all recorded history and the countless wars and war profiteers that have made a good living off of bloodshed." This is true but the difference is that wars are committed by States that have the unique ability to tax their citizens to finance a war effort and, critically, to print paper money to pay off the debts. The war profiteers align with States and make their money through redistributed wealth. Profiting off war far, far predates the existence of the nation-state. This is a non-answer. jrodefeld posted:By contrast, in a Stateless society there would be no taxes, Except to the private entities who provide the fundamentals of existence jrodefeld posted:likely no paper money This is cute, because you've dodged before my questions about who or what would stop me from issuing QMBux printed on rose petals and backed by nothing but my good name. jrodefeld posted:and any defense agency that was foolish enough to want to wage war on other defense agencies would have to finance their mini war themselves. It would never be a profitable enterprise. Yes it would, often, especially if they seized the assets of smaller DROs. jrodefeld posted:There will of course be crime and criminals but they will tend to be made up of the poor and desperate, not established and wealthy businessmen who earned their wealth in a free market Because we have a priori defined rich people stealing things as not stealing. jrodefeld posted:Now defensive war is another matter entirely. If a foreign nation State was foolish enough to try and conquer a State less territory, a free people who all stand to lose their independence, their prosperity and their way of life will have a great incentive to work together to repel the invading force. Catalonia had a great incentive to work together to repel an invading force as well. jrodefeld posted:A free people working to defend their own property, as history has shown, are capable of repelling far more powerful armies at a drastically lower cost. Hahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaahahahaha aHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHEHAHAEHIWJKLPFRHEASGFKOserhjgnlksvgjhsk oh my god, you actually believe this. You're a treasure. jrodefeld posted:Don't follow the speed limit? A harsh fine and arrest if you resist. Speeding is a victimless crime now? I guess until you kill somebody, sure. jrodefeld posted:In contrast to any State run "justice" system that exists or has ever existed, I think it can be easily demonstrated that the libertarian State-less alternative based on restitution to the victim of aggression is a far better and more ethical system. If by "easily demonstrated" you mean "throw out a bunch of incorrect assertions smugly enough that people think you aren't full of poo poo" sure. jrodefeld posted:There will surely exist charity dispute resolution organizations and defense agencies. No there won't, and certainly not ones that can stand toe-to-toe with for-profit DROs. jrodefeld posted:Therefore there will likely be no shortage of people who will volunteer their time and/or money to promote justice for one of those who is not adequately being served by the market. Yes there would, easily. You can't just make assertions like this like they're fact. jrodefeld posted:No voluntarily paying consumer would want to pay to punish someone for smoking a joint or engaging in victim-less behavior. Many would, actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've brought this point up before but it bears repeating. The fear of the unknown or what you fantasize will emerge in a society that emphasizes private property rights and the non aggression principle does not in any way validate your support for a clearly immoral system that is actually murdering people in wars, incarcerating millions of people unjustly and otherwise terrorizing a good portion of their population and the population of many other parts of the globe. I've stated this to other libertarians in the thread: libertarianism does not have a monopoly on these concepts. DROs are just as capable of murdering people in wars, incarcerating millions of people unjustly, or otherwise terrorizing a good portion of their population and the population of many other parts of the globe. During your last visit your description of the ideal ancap society was an Orwellian hellscape. Come on quote:With that said, I will address some of your concerns. In the first place, most of your concerns would be moot if you were addressing the minarchist libertarian, who envisions a night watchman State whose sole purpose is to protect private property, adjudicate disputes and punish those who violate the individual rights of others. Probably more than 80% of libertarians fit this description but since I am an anarchist libertarian, I'll give you my answer. That's right, you're not a minarchist libertarian, so moving on: quote:Let's presuppose that private defense agencies and dispute resolution organizations are in the businesses they are in for the purpose of making a profit. Isn't that a supposition that most leftists make about the market economy, that everyone is focused on turning a profit? Well, if that were the case, there would be an overwhelming incentive to NOT wage war between various defense agencies or DROs. War is ALWAYS a losing proposition. What would happen is that each private defense agency and dispute resolution organization would have a contingency plan for a third party arbitrator should the agencies representing different clients come to opposite conclusions about a dispute. Acceptance of a third party arbitrator in such a scenario would be part of the contract that each party signs with the agency that represents them. BZZZT, wrong. War is often a hugely profitable enterprise. The loser of a war gets hosed, but the winner of the war comes out ahead, and the people who sell weapons and manpower to either side are going to come out way ahead. Oh, your DRO has a third party arbitrator in case of invasion? It turns out that the third party arbitrator really likes huge stacks of cash and is happy to let me wage war on your DRO and take all of your stuff. Alternatively, I could just ignore your arbitrator. quote:I can hear your objection now. You might say "what, war is NOT profitable? That goes against all recorded history and the countless wars and war profiteers that have made a good living off of bloodshed." This is true but the difference is that wars are committed by States that have the unique ability to tax their citizens to finance a war effort and, critically, to print paper money to pay off the debts. The war profiteers align with States and make their money through redistributed wealth. Hey, you're pretty smart, that was my exact argument! However, you've made one fatal mistake: war is not unique to states, and never was. Keep in mind that we're not even talking about intercontinental invasions like what you're probably imagining. The DRO of West Los Angeles could invade the DRO of 43rd street to 52nd street. War profiteers don't require a state to make profit, they can sell to both "sides". quote:By contrast, in a Stateless society there would be no taxes, likely no paper money and any defense agency that was foolish enough to want to wage war on other defense agencies would have to finance their mini war themselves. It would never be a profitable enterprise. If any one agency was foolish enough to try, the other agencies would align together to protect their market and subdue the rogue and likely mentally insane company. Or they could get a loan and pay back that loan with plunder. For instance, if a DRO controlled a large number of oil fields, what would happen if a much larger and better-equipped DRO came and took it? They'd have a huge windfall of profit quote:If you had a rapist on the loose in your neighborhood would you not want to see them punished for their heinous crime? Or would you say, "well, considering the victim was poor and cannot pay a defense agency or DRO for representation I'll just let the criminal live among us without lifting a finger to help." I find it hard to believe that most people wouldn't want to see justice done even for those who are not represented by the market. However, we can expect the market to provide the services of defense and courts far better than any State monopoly and more broadly across society. This makes sense, a collective would want to punish the rapist or at least get him to move somewhere else. You might even get a few people chipping in to get the guy imprisoned. The issue is that you can't treat all crime that falls outside of the terms of a DRO contract in this way because there just aren't that many charitable individuals. You have no reason to believe that this would work. quote:No voluntarily paying consumer would want to pay to punish someone for smoking a joint or engaging in victim-less behavior. Only a State that can pass the costs on to the expropriated taxpayer could get away with being predatory, with terrorizing innocents who never used aggression against anyone. Talk about a perversion of "justice". This isn't an argument against a state, this is an argument against laws with which you disagree. You're not going to find anyone here who thinks that smoking a joint should get you locked away. But what happens if a community does want to pay to punish someone for smoking a joint? You have no reason to believe that this couldn't happen. You don't seem to understand people very well, much like all libertarians
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Rome is basically the quintessential example of War Profiteering. War was massively profitable, not just for Rome itself but for the men out on the frontier slaughtering savages and taking their stuff. That is, in fact, the primary reason they were so aggressively expansionist; it made them stupidly rich.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:When I pointed out that libertarianism wouldn't eliminate or even reduce war, the attempted counter was that libertarianism is based on non aggression. This is not a good argument, but it's the one that you made. In order to be effective, your argument requires that everyone perfectly obeys the non-aggression principle. Now that you're being called out for making a moronic argument based on hopes and dreams, you're trying to backpedal to a more defensible position: that we can try to base policy on non-aggression even if most people won't follow the principle. But in doing this, you're just admitting defeat: even if you have a society built on libertarianism, you recognize that war will never go away because humans are aggressive, which renders moot the "we will stop having wars" claim of libertarianism. War is NOT profitable nor is it the "natural" outcome of the free market. See my previous post. I pointed out that war is only beneficial to those that wage it if the costs of war can be offloaded to a third party. The State can wage war primarily for two reasons. First, they can tax the people to pay for it, but this is rarely successful since the public will not stand to have their taxes raised too high. The second, and more fundamental way that State pays for war is by printing money, devaluing the currency. Without this tool, war is a losing enterprise on nearly every level. If you look at American history you would see that, literally without exception, every large scale US war was financed through inflation and left the United States with huge debts. Even before the Federal Reserve was created we saw our government abandon the Gold Standard and resort to paper money to finance war. This happened during the Industrial Revolution with the Continental ("not worth a Continental) and during the Civil War when Lincoln ran the printing presses to fund his war effort. If you are genuinely opposed to war, you would join the libertarians and oppose fiat money. You would support a commodity backed currency that has a fixed quantity. One of the most desirably features of such a "hard" money standard, yet rarely discussed, is that it prevents the ruling class from financing war efforts. Since, as Randolph Borne said, "War is the health of the State", war expands central power more than any other thing. Finally, the argument by libertarians is not that everyone is going to abide by the non-aggression principle since that is clearly not the case. The argument is that we don't make exceptions for certain individuals. If moral principles are valid they must apply to all members of society. When someone inevitably does initiate force against someone or their property our moral condemnation must be equally vociferous and loudly proclaimed no matter who happens to commit the aggression. Every single person except the market anarchist libertarian makes exceptions in their moral principles for certain privileged individuals who are allowed to commit aggression. No other members of society are allowed, but the "ruling class" are permitted to violate property rights and commit violence. If we say that acts of aggression are immoral no matter who commits them, then you are a perfectly sound philosophical libertarian. The first step in any reform effort is to expose evil for what it is. If violence is wrong and we are advocates of peace, it is no small step to get people to understand first intellectually that we must stop this habit of making exceptions for moral rules. Once human practices are widely acknowledged as being evil, their practical defeat becomes exponentially easier and I would argue downright inevitable. Once a majority of people in society understood slavery to be a moral evil, then it was destined to be defeated in practice. Similarly if the act of aggression against peaceful people is seen as a moral evil, then widespread societal reform based on the non aggression principle is far easier and more sustainable in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So there is a general trend where increased costs lead to increased prices right? And labor is a cost right? Am I correct in assuming that you have no light to shed on why we might treat labor costs different from any other cost in regards to its effect on prices. Increased costs lead to an increased price floor. Do you really need me to explain basic math to you? If your costs are 100% labor, and you're making 0 profit, then labor cost = price. If you're making non-zero profit, then labor costs can increase without increasing price. You're also intentionally ignoring the stimulating effects that higher wages have on the economy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Rome is basically the quintessential example of War Profiteering. War was massively profitable, not just for Rome itself but for the men out on the frontier slaughtering savages and taking their stuff. That is, in fact, the primary reason they were so aggressively expansionist; it made them stupidly rich. Rome was also an organized and bureaucratic state, one of the first ones. So that is a bit of his, misguided, point. But war and aggressive attacks, and profiting from them, far predate any states in history, so for fighting to be profitable we do not need organized states, such as Rome. Here, Jrodefeld says: quote:The State can wage war primarily for two reasons. First, they can tax the people to pay for it, but this is rarely successful since the public will not stand to have their taxes raised too high. The second, and more fundamental way that State pays for war is by printing money, devaluing the currency. Without this tool, war is a losing enterprise on nearly every level. While these things apply to the Republic and Empire of Rome, he insinuates that the state is somehow needed for war to be profitable. What is a more free market than some nomadic tribes in the Steppe with no organized government? Nothing. Yet they often found war to be profitable without the abilities of a real state, such as levying taxes or issuing currency. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Rome was also an organized and bureaucratic state, one of the first ones. So that is a bit of his, misguided, point. Ah, true. I missed that part. But we agree, yes; the idea that war is not profitable is laughable on its face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:A free people working to defend their own property, as history has shown, are capable of repelling far more powerful armies at a drastically lower cost. And this is why Europeans were never able to gain a foothold in the Americas, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:While these things apply to the Republic and Empire of Rome, he insinuates that the state is somehow needed for war to be profitable. What is a more free market than some nomadic tribes in the Steppe with no organized government? Nothing. Yet they often found war to be profitable without the abilities of a real state, such as levying taxes or issuing currency. The Golden Horde will ride again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Plus hey, Rome was also big on public spending. So clearly the devil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
War is not caused by fiat money
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Rather than focusing on restitution to the victim of aggression or fraud, our current State "justice" system focuses on alleged crimes against the State, while mostly de-emphasizing crimes with actual victims. If you are a tax evader, you go to jail for a long time. Don't follow the speed limit? A harsh fine and arrest if you resist. If you use a prohibited substance like marijuana or if you sell said substances to willing buyers? You go to jail for a long time. There are too many meaningless and ridiculous victimless alleged "crimes" to count. The only "victimless" crime you actually listed is using marijuana. Tax evasion is theft. Disobeying the speed limit can kill people. And selling marijuana supports organized crime. asdf32 posted:Because people were making statements contradicting it like this? You have brilliantly detected my hyperbole. Your internet insight is clearly worth money, so I should BitTip you. No but seriously, my claim was a little strong, and I apologize for that, but if you read it in context, it should be obvious that I'm not being 100% literal. Let's qualify it a bit more so it can't be cherry-picked. Any person in reasonably good health who is capable of following basic directions and manipulating fairly normal physical loads without being a danger to themselves, others, or anything around them, is capable of enabling economic profit to at least some companies significantly in excess of minimum wage. Oh, and I am very heartened to discover that libertarian von Mises is not, in fact, Richard von Mises who came up with the von Mises failure criteria for isotropic materials (basically, a method of determining when a material will start to permanently bend.) They are, however, brothers. See, something useful came from that family.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
For anyone looking for, well, more reasons to roll your eyes at Jrod, I'd recommend Lawrence Keely's "War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage" if you want a fantastic read about how, and why, pre-civilized humans fought wars. Here's a hint I doubt anyone else will need: often, because it was in their self-interest to do so, and profitable relative to the scale and scope of complexity of their societies. This, of course, will not bother Jrod one whit, as he's already declared verifiable historical evidence to be of no interest, since everyone knows that
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:During your last visit your description of the ideal ancap society was an Orwellian hellscape. Come on. For those of you unfamiliar with Jrodefeld or for those of you playing at home, this is the article to which he is referring. I've bolded the especially egregious bits. Its worth mentioning that Jrodefeld has given a full throated defense of this article, and I'd be curious to see if he still supports it even now. quote:Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime All my favorites are bolded, but I especially like the following: Being forced to wear an ankle monitor like a criminal if someone says you are stalking them. Failure to do so is effectively death (No DRO coverage) DRO coverage existing for infidelity, or as a method to control your children. Forced labour as a punishment for murder. Report your fellow citizens for lack of DRO coverage. It is your duty. Would you like to know more? JRodefeld. If you aren't interested in talking about the minimum wage anymore (which you might be getting to) I'd also like to hear your opinion on whether you still believe that this orwellian hellscape is a fair example of your principles in action? Caros fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:War is NOT profitable nor is it the "natural" outcome of the free market. See my previous post. I pointed out that war is only beneficial to those that wage it if the costs of war can be offloaded to a third party. Except that none of this is true. For instance, if you have a big chest of Ron Paul Liberty Dollars, then I could purchase a shotgun and ambush you in the middle of the night and take your Ron Paul Liberty Dollars, covering the costs of my shotgun and providing me with a lot of profit. I've effectively waged war on you and made a profit. quote:The State can wage war primarily for two reasons. First, they can tax the people to pay for it, but this is rarely successful since the public will not stand to have their taxes raised too high. The second, and more fundamental way that State pays for war is by printing money, devaluing the currency. Without this tool, war is a losing enterprise on nearly every level. Yup, those are two ways in which states can wage war. But you're ignoring all of the taxless and currency-less groups that waged war against other groups throughout history. Your viewpoint is extremely narrow and is not representative of reality. quote:If you look at American history you would see that, literally without exception, every large scale US war was financed through inflation and left the United States with huge debts. Even before the Federal Reserve was created we saw our government abandon the Gold Standard and resort to paper money to finance war. This happened during the Industrial Revolution with the Continental ("not worth a Continental) and during the Civil War when Lincoln ran the printing presses to fund his war effort. If you're going to base your worldview on historical events, you may want to consider all of history instead of a single nation that is only 200 years old. quote:If you are genuinely opposed to war, you would join the libertarians and oppose fiat money. You would support a commodity backed currency that has a fixed quantity. One of the most desirably features of such a "hard" money standard, yet rarely discussed, is that it prevents the ruling class from financing war efforts. Since, as Randolph Borne said, "War is the health of the State", war expands central power more than any other thing. I am genuinely opposed to war. Libertarianism does not have a monopoly on anti-war ideals, nor are its concepts particularly effective at reducing violence (unless you have a magic wand that can make everyone follow the Non Aggression Principle, but at that point we're not really talking about philosophies anymore) quote:Finally, the argument by libertarians is not that everyone is going to abide by the non-aggression principle since that is clearly not the case. The argument is that we don't make exceptions for certain individuals. If moral principles are valid they must apply to all members of society. When someone inevitably does initiate force against someone or their property our moral condemnation must be equally vociferous and loudly proclaimed no matter who happens to commit the aggression. Every single person except the market anarchist libertarian makes exceptions in their moral principles for certain privileged individuals who are allowed to commit aggression. No other members of society are allowed, but the "ruling class" are permitted to violate property rights and commit violence. Libertarians are not the only ones who believe in non-violence. quote:Once human practices are widely acknowledged as being evil, their practical defeat becomes exponentially easier and I would argue downright inevitable. Once a majority of people in society understood slavery to be a moral evil, then it was destined to be defeated in practice. Similarly if the act of aggression against peaceful people is seen as a moral evil, then widespread societal reform based on the non aggression principle is far easier and more sustainable in the long term. This is just kind of a weird non sequitur about morality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, how do you view the history of the nation state? Was it necessary to have it before we could reach the libertarian view in its maturity, or would be be better off without some of the most iconic and first states, such as Rome, who went all in with public spending, citizenship and concepts such as laws, administration and bureaucracy where participation was not voluntary, but it was forced that you belonged to the nation and could not simply just opt-out? These in contrast with anarchist, minarchist, feudalist and what have you societies with no real concept of a real, shared, state. This is to say, what if we never had states of an sorts, such as Babylon, Rome, Greek States and then the 1700's nation states, for example, and instead just skipped these. Would we be better off? Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Deliberately creating deadly situations; a victimless crime. This would explain the mentality behind repealing mandatory fire exits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:This is so much better when it is NOT done by a, to some extent, democratic and representative government that we all theoretically have a stake at, but some Corp EvilMastermind Ltd that answers literally to only money. The "free market" is basically like the bogeyman to leftists. They've never actually seen one in real life, wouldn't recognize it if they had, but they are REAL sure it's super scary. I am pointing out the historic evils of democratic Government, which are on par if not in excess of dictatorial and monarchical States, and concluding that we must abolish and do away with them for the sake of the foreigners being murdered, the Americans unjustly locked in a cage, the environment that has been harmed by State action and negligence and the Corporate welfare queens that gain monopoly privilege through their disproportionate association with this institution. And your response? Basically, it'll be REAL scary without this predatory institution at the center of society! We can't predict what humans can achieve or how society will evolve and develop in the absence of coercion or central planing, but the one thing that all decent people should be able to agree on is that violence perpetrated against the innocent no matter who is committing the aggression should be opposed. In it's place we can substitute a more humane and cooperative model of social organization. Yes we still will have the problem of violence in society. But you cannot solve that problem by first making excuses for violence. You oppose violence by making a clear, unambiguous stand against aggression in ALL its forms. Then you can practically deal with the criminals that will exist in any society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Progressive drug policy would have the same effect. You're not going to find any liberals here who disagree with libertarian drug policy, it's the same as liberal drug policy. Karia posted:The only "victimless" crime you actually listed is using marijuana.[selling it is your bad though even though someone else created the black market] So do you guys want to work this out amongst yourselves or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:38
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
jrodefeld posted:The "free market" is basically like the bogey man to leftists. They've never actually seen one in real life, wouldn't recognize it if they had, but they are REAL sure it's super scary. And then we grow up and realize that it is not a thing that could actually exist in reality. Yeah... that actually sounds pretty accurate. DeusExMachinima posted:So do you guys want to work this out amongst yourselves or what? To be fair, being a bulk seller currently contributes to organized crime which is in fact not victimless. I'm sure that Karia would probably also agree that we should legalize and regulate the poo poo out of it at which point selling becomes completely victimless as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Speaking of conservatives in general, it gives me great joy to know that they are basically frothing at the mouth in their desire to eliminate social security and medicare, but they cannot touch it and survive due to the fact that the very heart of their base is made up of Old (White) People. They'll just do what Romney/Ryan did last time around and claim that it's the evil, socialist, big government Obama and his Democrat minions who are the ones that REALLY want to kill medicare and social security! This is also another great reason to be extremely skeptical of poo poo right-wingers say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
I can't get over this claim that people can only wage war due to fiat currency and taxation. The whole idea is just so insane. I wonder if anyone ever bothered to tell pre-history societies that their tribal wars were impossible?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So do you guys want to work this out amongst yourselves or what? There's nothing to work out; we both agree that making marijuana illegal is stupid. Smoking marijuana is a victimless crime. Selling marijuana creates victims by funding violent drug empires, but only because it is illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So do you guys want to work this out amongst yourselves or what? I support legalization of marijuana. However, since in most places it is clearly NOT legal, buying it or dealing it supports the black market, which does cause significant harm to people. I'm okay with people buying/selling it when there is a legitimate system that ensures safety for all parties, and when there are no other crimes being committed with the money. Outside of that... no. Do it safely, in a way that's not going to support other illegal activities, and is not allowed to people under 18. So can we hurry up and legalize the stuff so that nobody goes to jail for it and its sale/use can be properly regulated and taxed? tia. EDIT: ^ Dammit, I wanted to be the one to make our stances seem reasonable and compatible. Karia fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I can't get over this claim that people can only wage war due to fiat currency and taxation. The whole idea is just so insane. I wonder if anyone ever bothered to tell pre-history societies that their tribal wars were impossible? Hell we need tell everyone who ever fought before the crimean war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hell we need tell everyone who ever fought before the crimean war. "Those don't count, new rule! New rule!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The "free market" is basically like the bogeyman to leftists. They've never actually seen one in real life, wouldn't recognize it if they had, but they are REAL sure it's super scary. The issue is that libertarians take on a bizarre definition of aggression, a definition that is always shifting to mean whatever is currently convenient. Can you define aggression for us, right now? If I walk onto my neighbor's property without his consent, is that aggression? If he shoots me for aggressively walking across his lawn, is that aggression? What if I was stealing his lawnmower and then he shoots me, is that aggression? What if I was taking back the lawnmower that he stole from me and then he shot me, is that aggression? Who is aggressing who in each scenario?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The issue is that libertarians take on a bizarre definition of aggression, a definition that is always shifting to mean whatever is currently convenient. Can you define aggression for us, right now? If I walk onto my neighbor's property without his consent, is that aggression? If he shoots me for aggressively walking across his lawn, is that aggression? What if I was stealing his lawnmower and then he shoots me, is that aggression? What if I was taking back the lawnmower that he stole from me and then he shot me, is that aggression? Who is aggressing who in each scenario? I've covered this in a few posts the last few days that have yet to get a real reply, but the gist of their definition is not even a disagreement about what constitutes aggression, its a disagreement on property. Taxation is theft because libertarians don't believe they should owe taxes according to their pure and perfect logic, so it is theft and theft is aggression. I mean, ignore the fact that its a definition that effectively becomes meaningless when you simply start redefining understood concepts to be something else, the simple fact is that liberals outright agree with the basic Non-Aggression Principle. It is in use in our society today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This isn't an argument against a state, this is an argument against laws with which you disagree. You're not going to find anyone here who thinks that smoking a joint should get you locked away. My point is that the punishment of so-called "victimless" crimes would be practically unsustainable when individuals would have to voluntarily pay for the incarceration and trial of individuals who just happen to be doing something that you don't personally approve of. I could possibly see some fundamentalist Christian group who really DID want to punish drug users, but the vast majority of people would not want to spend their own money to go after people who are minding their owner business. It is very easy for people to say, in the abstract, that this or that voluntary activity should be "illegal". Ask people if heroin or prostitution should be illegal and the vast majority would say that they should. This is how democracy works. People think that someone else is paying the cost. If they had to pay directly to go after drug users who are minding their own business their attitude would change rather quickly. There may be a few fanatics who are so dedicated as to actually want to spend their own money to go after people who are not harming anybody, but the number would be vanishingly small. In contrast, everyone has a desire for security for themselves and their property. Individuals who initiate force against people or steal their property are a threat at large and any victim would have a great incentive to get back what was taken from him, to have restitution for the crime. And society at large would want to see such a criminal punished for his action. We are comparing contrasting systems so it is not enough for you to suppose that some possible miscarriage of justice could conceivably occur. You have to ask yourself whether such injustice is more or less likely to occur in a Stateless, privately and voluntarily financed justice system or a State monopolized, tax funded justice system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:57
|
|