|
It's totally not OK to take money from somebody by force (i.e., tax them) but it's totally OK to withhold somebody's ability to acquire food to force them into a situation where they have to make somebody else richer to survive. - Libertarians
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Not doubting your source but can you post some screen caps or something since its not visible to me? I just get this right now: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
At first I was happy that my post brought new life into this thread by bringing us Plastics. But now I'm not so sure. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Not doubting your source but can you post some screen caps or something since its not visible to me? I just get this right now: keep scrolling down
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Even if you nail the Libertarian dead to rights on bad outcomes, they'll just abandon the argument that libertopia would be better for the people living in it and fall back on ontological ethics. A libertarian system is better because it's libertarian, not because it's actually better to live there (if you aren't in the aristocratic/warlord class). You'd think so, but then every Libertarian post would be "Doesn't matter, only anarchocapitalism is ever acceptable" and they'd be less hilariously awful. Maintaining the pretense that Hell is the best of all possible worlds is part of what makes them entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:You'd think so, but then every Libertarian post would be "Doesn't matter, only anarchocapitalism is ever acceptable" and they'd be less hilariously awful. Maintaining the pretense that Hell is the best of all possible worlds is part of what makes them entertaining. Plus, then it would be more obvious when they skip every response that attacks their "reasoning from first principles" bullshit. It's hilarious the number of times we've tried to nail JRod down on how you derive anything from the Action Axiom, or how Argumentation Ethics makes any sense at all, only to have him scoot past it because he suddenly remembered he wanted to talk about On that note, hey Plastics! What exactly is the reasoning that brought you to libertarianism as a moral good independent of human life? Talking about outcomes doesn't seem to bring much progress to the discussion, so maybe we can talk about the underlying logic. Also, to restate my previous question in a way that is less easily deflected, what's to stop states from rising if you got your dream society, assuming it came about in the way you want it to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
zeal posted:keep scrolling down 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Also, to restate my previous question in a way that is less easily deflected, what's to stop states from rising if you got your dream society, assuming it came about in the way you want it to? They would rise they would just be corporate fascist states ruled by a private oligarchy instead of states that have any semblance of accountability to the people so it's ok, because what libertarians mean when they say they don't like "states" is democracy
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:They would rise they would just be corporate fascist states ruled by a private oligarchy instead of states that have any semblance of accountability to the people so it's ok, because what libertarians mean when they say they don't like "states" is democracy Some of them even admit that they hate democracy outright. And, just in case there's any doubts as to why, quote:The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Some of them even admit that they hate democracy outright. And, just in case there's any doubts as to why, I like the bonus round at the end when he tried to explain that "no I don't suggest taking the vote from women". It's true. He doesn't suggest that. He just thinks we shouldn't have given it to them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:They would rise they would just be corporate fascist states ruled by a private oligarchy instead of states that have any semblance of accountability to the people so it's ok, because what libertarians mean when they say they don't like "states" is democracy Oh, you and I know that, I'm just curious how they explain it when they're still claiming that anarchy is possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Oh, you and I know that, I'm just curious how they explain it when they're still claiming that anarchy is possible. Because they have very little concept of how a society actually functions, and have delusions of grandeur.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Some of them even admit that they hate democracy outright. And, just in case there's any doubts as to why, It's fascinating how often reactionaries notice that they have trouble persuading certain groups in a fair and representative system and then go on to reason "welp, dictatorship it is then." This is a more honest form of what the GOP practices with discriminatory voting laws. These filth never believed in democracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's fascinating how often reactionaries notice that they have trouble persuading certain groups in a fair and representative system and then go on to reason "welp, dictatorship it is then." This is a more honest form of what the GOP practices with discriminatory voting laws. These filth never believed in democracy. It is mildly refreshing, I admit, that some of them are willing to come out and say "We're really just for whatever system gives us the power and wealth we want (ie all of it), and if democracy yields other results it's bad and must be destroyed or abandoned."
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It is mildly refreshing, I admit, that some of them are willing to come out and say "We're really just for whatever system gives us the power and wealth we want (ie all of it), and if democracy yields other results it's bad and must be destroyed or abandoned." Don't they deserve it tho? The are the Natural Social Elite after all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Caros posted:Don't they deserve it tho? The are the Natural Social Elite after all. Ermine's coming back in style for the new century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:Don't they deserve it tho? The are the Natural Social Elite after all. I'm torn between whether to respond to this with those stupid Justine Tunney posts about coders being the modern equivalent of the aristocratic order, or the dark enlightenment magic cards. Spoiled for choices, really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'm torn between whether to respond to this with those stupid Justine Tunney posts about coders being the modern equivalent of the aristocratic order, or the dark enlightenment magic cards. Spoiled for choices, really. I'd go with the Mieville "philosophy of capitalist inadequacy" article myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
A better name for Libertarianism would be Proprietarianism. They don't give a poo poo about liberty. What they care about is deifying property as the only right. Nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Utilitarianism sucks because it results in all kinds of lovely social arrangements. Like, let's assume that giving all of society's wealth to the top 1% results in the greatest possible total utility. Utilitarianism would say this arrangement is more just than an egalitarian distribution that creates less total utility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Only if you define utility as something utterly abhorrent. And if you're willing to do that then pretty much every moral, ethical, and legal system is guaranteed to be lovely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Utilitarianism sucks because it results in all kinds of lovely social arrangements. Typically, this is because you have hosed Up your utility estimates. Alternatively, http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2569
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Typically, this is because you have hosed Up your utility estimates. That works too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Only if you define utility as something utterly abhorrent. And if you're willing to do that then pretty much every moral, ethical, and legal system is guaranteed to be lovely. I don't think that's necessary. Utilitarianism just asks us to define the Right and the Good. We can define the Right as maximizing the Good, and the good as Wealth, GDP, or whatever. Other ethical systems require us to guarantee equal liberty and to ensure that the least well off benefit from differences between people in natural and social standing. Utilitarianism makes no guarantee of equal liberty or mutual benefit from mutual cooperation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Deontological ethics sucks because what if your rule is "the definition of The Good is giving all wealth to the top 1%" then you would have to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:I don't think that's necessary. Utilitarianism just asks us to define the Right and the Good. We can define the Right as maximizing the Good, and the good as Wealth, GDP, or whatever. Oh, so you are separating utilitarianism from the clearly measurable utilon (utility particle). That makes sense as far as classifying similar systems of value. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Deontological ethics sucks because what if your rule is "the definition of The Good is giving all wealth to the top 1%" then you would have to. You'd have a hard time reasoning to that rule though. Using Rawls' veil of ignorance and original position ensures such a rule would never be adopted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:I don't think that's necessary. Utilitarianism just asks us to define the Right and the Good. We can define the Right as maximizing the Good, and the good as Wealth, GDP, or whatever. It's true when you structure your actions to maximize something not good, you end up with a not good result. If you want to maximize happiness, you do end up in all practical cases wanting to maximize equality. If you were to decide between giving a dollar to a homeless man or a millionaire, utilitarianism would have you give it to the homeless man because he derives more happiness from it. Giving all your money to the rich can't actually happen in utilitarianism because utility monsters don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:You'd have a hard time reasoning to that rule though. Using Rawls' veil of ignorance and original position ensures such a rule would never be adopted. Yeah exactly you'd have a hard time reasoning that the wealth of the top 1% is what we should be maximizing. Your complaint is just "what if you chose a bad goal, then using %moral_system to get there would be bad!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:It's true when you structure your actions to maximize something not good, you end up with a not good result. If you want to maximize happiness, you do end up in all practical cases wanting to maximize equality. If you were to decide between giving a dollar to a homeless man or a millionaire, utilitarianism would have you give it to the homeless man because he derives more happiness from it. Giving all your money to the rich can't actually happen in utilitarianism because utility monsters don't actually exist. VitalSigns posted:Yeah exactly you'd have a hard time reasoning that the wealth of the top 1% is what we should be maximizing. What I'm trying to capture here is the standard capitalist argument that allowing a degree of inequality, even an extreme level of inquality as we had in the Gilded Age and as we do today, allows us as a society to produce more wealth. Implicit in this argument is that more total wealth means everyone is better off, but this is obviously not guaranteed. I'm not imagining individual actors and individual actions, but societal actions. Allowing a degree of inequality to exist makes people more motivated and more productive, so this story goes, and this is certainly imaginable even if we disagree with it. An example might help me flesh this out. The capitalist says that allowing the capitalists to extract rents and surplus value allows the capitalists to produce more goods, services, whatever, than would otherwise be produced. The argument goes that a Socialist system, which distributes surplus value according to the wishes of those who produce it, will naturally lead to less total production. This might very well be true. We could easily imagine a world where a Capitalist system will outproduce a Socialist system, while the expectations of the least well off in the Capitalist system are much lower than the expectations of the least well off in a Socialist system. I agree that given two scenarios of equal total utility, the Utilitarian is compelled to choose the scenario with the most equal distribution of benefits. However, let's say that the sketch above is accurate. The Capitalist system has greater overall wealth, production, whatever, than the Socialist system. The Capitalist system also has a class structure where the least well off, and even the middle classes, have much lower expectations than those comparable classes in the Socialist system, but where the most well off are extraordinarily better off than their counterparts in the Socialist system. Without substantial revisions, Utilitarianism is going to tell us to accept the Capitalist system as being more moral. I'm not a scholar of Utilitarianism or ethical theory. I'm reading Rawls at the suggestion of some smart guy upthread somewhere. So feel free, anybody, to explain things better to me. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Again, that is only happening because you are choosing wealth/production as your unit of utility. You are, in effect, choosing a bad goal, and getting bad results because of it. Which is not exactly a profoundly enlightening statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Again, that is only happening because you are choosing wealth/production as your unit of utility. You are, in effect, choosing a bad goal, and getting bad results because of it. Which is not exactly a profoundly enlightening statement. I suppose we could select some other goal, but I always thought Utilitarianism was about increasing human welfare, and human welfare is largely tied to wealth and productivity. Standards of living and all that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
One of the problems here is that lolbertarians are frequently completely failing to understand what ethics means. Let's say I am, one day, just walking down the street and have like a thousand cheeseburgers. That's more cheeseburgers than I could possibly eat before they go bad. There's just no way I can eat them all. But I'm just happily walking down the street, munching on my burgs. Along the way I come across a homeless guy with no money that is hungry. He's looking at my burgs with that "oh man please give me one? Just one? I'm so loving hungry" look in his eye. He has nothing I could exchange a burger for. If you look at basically every other system of ethics they'll agree that the ethical thing is for me to give the guy some of my cheeseburgers. Lolbertarianism says it's only OK if I felt like it. If I just think "nah, gently caress that guy" that's a perfectly ethical decision according to lolbertarianism for no reason other than those burgs are mine. The thing of it is, if I give him some of my bounty of burgs, I haven't actually lost anything because there's no way I could eat them all myself. According to utilitarianism the ethical thing to do is give him some burgs because it will make him happier but won't make me less happy. Even if I'm a miserly jerk that just wants to brag about how many burgers I have there is basically on possible situation where the happiness I'd lose would compare to the happiness he gained. Now, if I'm deliberately hoarding all the burgs and making them go to waste lolbertarianism is OK with that because, gently caress it, they're mine and I can do what I want with them. Kind of the point of taxation and regulation is to prevent exactly that and the problems that causes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:... The first statement is blatantly false and the bolded portion indicates where you're coming from on this (it's complete and total ignorance). Utilitarianism is often summarized in a single statement as 'the greatest good for the greatest number.' I can be more nuanced than that, but that's all we need for this post. One of the problems in Utilitarianism is multiple conceptions of the good. As Paragon has pointed out, your conception of the good as maximum wealth is one among a number of possibilities. Here's another one: Minimal suffering. If you use that as your guideline you wind up looking at Rawls and going 'That seems like a good idea.' If you're going to engage in the philosophical study of..anything really, the first thing to learn is that while Words Mean ThingsTM philosophers/ies sometimes use words in ways that are different than their common usage. In this case, "utility" can (and in fact does) mean a whole bunch of different things depending on which Utilitarian philosopher/y you're dealing with. So knock it off with the 'utility = wealth' criticism of Utilitarianism because it's basically just a giant straw-man. Edit: Grand Theft Autobot posted:I suppose we could select some other goal, but I always thought Utilitarianism was about increasing human welfare, and human welfare is largely tied to wealth and productivity. Standards of living and all that. Um..true enough I guess, but even in your own example your pointing out the possibility that human welfare (I'm assuming expectations is roughly equal to welfare in your post) could be less in the Capitalist system in which case Utilitarianism is free to reject that set up and call it good. Buried alive fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the problems here is that lolbertarians are frequently completely failing to understand what ethics means. Which is why Lolbertarianism is just a means of rationalization for sociopaths, rather than a political ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:The first statement is blatantly false and the bolded portion indicates where you're coming from on this (it's complete and total ignorance). Utilitarianism is often summarized in a single statement as 'the greatest good for the greatest number.' I can be more nuanced than that, but that's all we need for this post. One of the problems in Utilitarianism is multiple conceptions of the good. As Paragon has pointed out, your conception of the good as maximum wealth is one among a number of possibilities. Here's another one: Minimal suffering. If you use that as your guideline you wind up looking at Rawls and going 'That seems like a good idea.' Fair enough. I'm sure then that there are utilitarians whose conception of human welfare is largely based on standards of living, wealth, and so on. I'm not trying to straw man, I'm sure there are alternative conceptions where the good to be maximized is a utility based around something else, like human flourishing and culture and so on. I think the Libertarians in this thread, and most of the people who argue about the positives of wealth and income inequality, are largely using utilitarian arguments, even if they are claiming they aren't Libertarians. I'm obviously very likely to be wrong. I study history, economics, education, and crime, not philosophy. In my example, I'm just trying to illustrate that a situation is possible where Utilitarianism (or arguments that appear to be essentailly Utilitarian in form) can be used to justify the acceptance of a lovely social system. If the Capitalist system produces a greater sum of human welfare, even if grossly unequally distributed, than a Socialis system which has an egalitarian distribution, then Utilitarianism (in this definition) would tell us the Capitalist system is more just.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Well first of all, Rawls actually does justify inequality if it's a means to make the least fortunate better off, and he does accept the argument that it's okay to have capitalist millionaires if the result is more production provided that the poorest receive more goods than in a more equal system that produces less. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Differencequote:1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value. Second, your specific objection to utilitarianism is resolved with the idea of marginal utility. The first $30,000 or so a person makes is the difference between life and death, whereas a millionaire's tenth million doesn't improve his life much at all over the ninth so it's better that a poor person get the necessities to live even if it means the total GDP is lower because we miss out on another million dollar yacht. Or, a house to a homeless person is the difference between safety and exposure to the elements but a third mansion is only worth a nice summer retreat to a millionaire so it's better that everyone have a modest house than for the top 10% to have 3 gaudy mansions even if the latter case is worth more in raw dollars. E: Oh and third austerity and laissez-faire don't actually work anyway, but even if they were the best way to grow GDP (they're not), utilitarianism still wouldn't compel us to accept them. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:If the Capitalist system produces a greater sum of human welfare, even if grossly unequally distributed, than a Socialis system which has an egalitarian distribution, then Utilitarianism (in this definition) would tell us the Capitalist system is more just. you've got this completely backwards. it's not just "the greatest good," it's "the greatest good for the greatest number," so no, utilitarianism as a monolith would not say that. this is in fact the reverse of the most common critique of utilitarianism, being that it can be interpreted as requiring small numbers of people to sacrifice in order to benefit large numbers of people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
He's actually managed to hit on the 'utility monster' critique. Greatest amount of welfare (however defined) but a radically unequal distribution of it. In terms of unequal wealth that means saying that a guy with a million dollars is happier to acquire his next dollar than somebody with no dollars is to acquire his next dollar. Which is a stretch at the very least, but there it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Yeah utility monsters aren't real though so I don't see how that's a problem. "What if the entire human race were about to die from a horrifically painful disease, but you could cure everyone by beating this one innocent magical orphan girl, where's your ethics now deontologicailures!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 06:14
|
|