|
Muscle Tracer posted:How would the crimes of children be handled by a DRO? If little 8 year old Johnny gets into his neighbor's SUV and accidentally backs over their indentured gardener, is he responsible for manslaughter, theft, trespassing, or all three? Or are his parents the ones who get whacked? How white are Johnny, the neighbor, and the dead
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:But if a child is property, it seems ridiculous to punish the child. If my gun shoots a man while it's in my hand, it's me we punish, not the gun. If my child runs over a man while ostensibly under my supervision, it should logically follow that I am the one that's culpable for the trespassing, theft, and manslaughter. Your scenario relies on unrealistic assumptions about Libertopia. First of all, how would the child have made it past my minefields and automated machingun turrets to get to my SUV in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
The answer is that the parents pay the weregild and add it to the ever-growing list of child-rearing expenses little Johnny will be expected to repay upon reaching adulthood. The neighbors would have the option of taking possession of Johnny if they wished, but his attached debt would be transferred with him, so this right is rarely acted upon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:20
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:But if a child is property, it seems ridiculous to punish the child. If my gun shoots a man while it's in my hand, it's me we punish, not the gun. If my child runs over a man while ostensibly under my supervision, it should logically follow that I am the one that's culpable for the trespassing, theft, and manslaughter. This is a pretty inane argument. If I negligently let my cow out of a field and it tramples your property, you will have a remedy against me in any moral or legal system of any kind, virtually. With a slave you could proceed against the master and the slave both, with different forms of punishment for each - that is the historic pattern.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
I'm sure it's been asked before, but how does nuclear proliferation work in Libertopia? Do nukes become privately owned or what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:14
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:I'm sure it's been asked before, but how does nuclear proliferation work in Libertopia? Do nukes become privately owned or what? It's presumed that nuclear proliferation will be handled by associations of covenanting communities choosing to boycott or take action against such individuals who proliferate dangerous goods as necessary.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:I'm sure it's been asked before, but how does nuclear proliferation work in Libertopia? Do nukes become privately owned or what? No one will interfere with your Market-given right to own as many nukes as you can afford. Unless you forfeit that right in your DRO contract. And let me assure you, not only do we at Valhalla DRO not have such clauses, but possession of such a weapon would qualify you for a Jarl-level membership automatically!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Libertarian MAD is an eye watering concept. I'm sure you could write some kind of really good cyberpunk about it though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Libertarian MAD is an eye watering concept. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:That whole line of argument starts from an insane and reality-defying premise: the self-sufficient autonomy of children as capable of meaningfully consenting to decisions on this scale. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's an example of the difficulty of a political philosophy that simply can't account for the possibility that actually existing humans are not always able to give meaningful consent in all situations where the direct threat of violence is not present. Well to add to this, I know there probably isn't a satisfactory answer because the philosophy in general seems poorly thought out but how does libertarian philosophy deal with mentally incompetent adults? People with profound autism, mental retardation, schizophrenia or even transient conditions; severe depressive disorders can present with psychotic features, can you honestly argue that someone with bipolar in the manic phase of their condition can give meaningful consent sufficient to participate in this sort of system? I work in psychology, my entire field of study and practice is entirely premised on the notion that people are not logically-driven automatons who make decisions vested in factual axioms and with due deference to their own (or anyone else's) best interests. People are emotional, people are ruled by personality and personal experiences shaped by their biology and social environment, to assume everyone starts from some equal place that grants equal capacity to participate in the world as a rational actor is ludicrous and to set up a system that can lethally penalize you for failing to act rationally ignores a lot of very fundamental tenants of human psychology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Well to add to this, I know there probably isn't a satisfactory answer because the philosophy in general seems poorly thought out but how does libertarian philosophy deal with mentally incompetent adults? People with profound autism, mental retardation, schizophrenia or even transient conditions; severe depressive disorders can present with psychotic features, can you honestly argue that someone with bipolar in the manic phase of their condition can give meaningful consent sufficient to participate in this sort of system? The answer is private charity. If this is insufficient, then the market has decided that they should die. If they're coerced into signing a contract they don't understand they can fight it in court. Strawman fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Well to add to this, I know there probably isn't a satisfactory answer because the philosophy in general seems poorly thought out but how does libertarian philosophy deal with mentally incompetent adults? People with profound autism, mental retardation, schizophrenia or even transient conditions; severe depressive disorders can present with psychotic features, can you honestly argue that someone with bipolar in the manic phase of their condition can give meaningful consent sufficient to participate in this sort of system? Simple answer: they don't really give a gently caress. Even at the most charitable version of libertarianism imaginable, it's not a consequentialist philosophy. All they care about is if their non-aggression principle isn't violated. If their tax- and aggression-free world results in the profoundly disabled and mentally incompetent being forgotten and left to die, so be it. Charity might or might not pick up the slack, but they'd be happy either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Private charity. If this is insufficient, then the market has decided that they should die. Noooooo this doesn't work, this isn't an answer. With no "state", who would be in charge of the allocation of charity resources? To whom would they be accountable and could someone receiving charity have access to redress if, for example, the food you donated was expired or something? What happens if the charity resources are insufficient to meet the demands of the disabled population? I get that the market has decided they should die but is that seriously the line advocated by libertarians? Because, holy poo poo, how sociopathic can you get (though I guess it's no more sociopathic than allowing people to die of treatable physical illness because they lack the ability to pay for healthcare). But my question was more directed at the DROs, not specifically the care of the mentally infirm. In a system of DROs, how are mentally incompetent people covered/protected? In the legal system, people cannot enter into contracts full stop; they're legally considered to have insufficient resources to enter into a legally binding agreement in good faith and with appropriate advocacy for their best interests. But it sounds like people not covered by a DRO exist in some legal anarchy where anything goes, how does the libertarian system still provide them with sufficient protection while still not requiring they participate in a legal process which they cannot comprehend (or force someone else to enter a legal contract with them when they cannot be expected to act in good faith)? I suspect (strongly) that this hasn't been adequately addressed and there is no actual answer to this question... **edit** quote:If their tax- and aggression-free world results in the profoundly disabled and mentally incompetent being forgotten and left to die, so be it. Okay I get this but what about if I approach it from a different angle? If everyone in this system is "allowed" to enter into a contract, you'll get a lot of people unable to act in good faith entering into contracts. And I get that the libertarian answer is to let them die but what about the people who are not infirm, who this system is designed to protect? Do they not see the myriad ways that someone who does not have a mental illness could be financially injured by unwittingly entering into contracts with people who cannot legally consent to contracts because there exists no mechanism to prevent this from taking place? When you enter into a contract, you're expected to act in good faith but there's a presumption that the other person entering the agreement will also act in good faith and there exists legal mechanisms already to help safeguard this process. Serrath fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
I don't need to be able to give you all the details, because the free market will include the best minds in the country, and once the government gets out of the way, those minds will be unleashed to solve these problems faster and betterer. If I told you in the 1960s that cell phones would revolutionise communication and become ubiquitous in 50 years, I wouldn't need to be able to tell you all the details of the supply chains to be right, the free market figured that out for me. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Noooooo this doesn't work, this isn't an answer. Big Government is inherently less efficient than the Market, therefore private charity will be able to do everything that welfare does and more for a fraction of the cost. Everyone who deserves charity will get it. What part of this don't you understand?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Serrath us filthy statists don't pretend to understand how any of this Lord of the Flies stuff would work outside of our devoted Norse flavored fanfiction. Most of us think the state should be stronger than the corporations it licenses but that would be absurd to libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Libertarians don't regard children and the severely disabled as morally autonomous, in general, so that assertion is a mistake where it appears, particularly for the purposes of jrode's school of libertarianism. They do however insist that moral autonomy, in general, be granted to individuals on a case by case instead of class basis: if you are old enough, for example, to be emancipated from your parents at 14, it seems to libertarians you should also have full political rights and the right to engage in sexual activity without legal prevention. The attitude basically makes the head of household something like the paterfamilias.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
A quick question, does the state exist at all in these libertarian utpoias? how much power does it have, how does the politic work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:A quick question, does the state exist at all in these libertarian utpoias? how much power does it have, how does the politic work? Sometimes it does as a vestigial nightwatchman entity with little authority besides reflexively protecting property/prosecuting property crimes; usually it has entirely vanished, alongside all those troublesome minorities it once so coddled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Sometimes it does as a vestigial nightwatchman entity with little authority besides reflexively protecting property/prosecuting property crimes; usually it has entirely vanished, alongside all those troublesome minorities it once so coddled. So how do the corporations exist without it? It seems to me the web of contracts and whatever with the DROs would very quickly descend to good old fashioned hereditary feudalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:So how do the corporations exist without it? It seems to me the web of contracts and whatever with the DROs would very quickly descend to good old fashioned hereditary feudalism. Nononono, that would never happened, not at all because, because you see, *loosens tie, runs hair through increasingly disheveled hair* the market would necessarily intervene in those cases where- and I don't mean "intervene" here like those statist men with guns but rather that mutually involved arbitrators who, yes, would need on occasion to be armed, *begins sweating noticeably* but that's not reason to think that devolution into feudalism, which wasn't even that ba, err, uhh HELP THIS GUY'S AGGRESSING AGAINST ME!!! *mashes Valhalla DRO panic button*
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This is a pretty inane argument. If I negligently let my cow out of a field and it tramples your property, you will have a remedy against me in any moral or legal system of any kind, virtually. With a slave you could proceed against the master and the slave both, with different forms of punishment for each - that is the historic pattern. So what I'm getting here is that some form of punishment must be devised for my gun after I use it to take vengeance for the life of my gardener?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:37
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:So what I'm getting here is that some form of punishment must be devised for my gun after I use it to take vengeance for the life of my gardener? Or you pay a fee or get flogged. Whatever works. KennyTheFish posted:So how do the corporations exist without it? It seems to me the web of contracts and whatever with the DROs would very quickly descend to good old fashioned hereditary feudalism. It might, but libertarians argue that other forms of social and economic progress make that unlikely, and argue that people will pursue a more rational approach absent any interference.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Your gun would have to pay bitcoins to the deceased's family, so using the Internet of Things it would collude with your fridge and your closet door to charge you extra whenever you need to access those areas. If you don't comply then the bitcoins that the fridge was mining will be used to pay for a murderdrone that kills you in your sleep (this is not violating the NAP, you see, because you aggressed against the fridge for refusing to pay the higher price for food; it's all in your user agreement, so you see this is a consensual killing)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Nononono, that would never happened, not at all because, because you see, *loosens tie, runs hair through increasingly disheveled hair* the market would necessarily intervene in those cases where- and I don't mean "intervene" here like those statist men with guns but rather that mutually involved arbitrators who, yes, would need on occasion to be armed, *begins sweating noticeably* but that's not reason to think that devolution into feudalism, which wasn't even that ba, err, uhh HELP THIS GUY'S AGGRESSING AGAINST ME!!! Pretty much, basically after all of about five minutes the system these chucklefucks envisage would just reform into a collection of smaller states with private entities that function exactly the same as governments but without that pesky 'democracy' business.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
At the juncture in life where I could have become a libertarian (white middle-class male recently out of high school). I thought through how it seemed it would work. With no regulation, you'd not only need a subscription to your DRO, you'd need subscriptions to consumer report companies to tell you what products and services were safe and worthwhile. Then you'd have no guarantee that the reporting companies aren't corrupt, not to mention that it's incredibly difficult and contentious to establish things like "Product X causes Disease Y" and yeah, 19-year-old me wasn't stupid enough to be a libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
I think you mean you weren't rich enough to be a libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
I wasn't rich enough to be stupid enough to be a libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I wasn't rich enough to be stupid enough to be a libertarian. Yup
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's presumed that nuclear proliferation will be handled by associations of covenanting communities choosing to boycott or take action against such individuals who proliferate dangerous goods as necessary. And they'll be checked by all the DROs whose Bosses have gotten their heroism high enough that they can even infiltrate people who possess a nuke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:And they'll be checked by all the DROs whose Bosses have gotten their INT skill high enough that they can even infiltrate people who possess a nuke. Fixed by a libertarian
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
I still don't know why I should care about property rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Lord_Ventnor posted:I still don't know why I should care about property rights. Because if you don't, Jrod's gonna beat you up until you love the non-agression principle. Now, do we kick out the negroids or the gays first? Hoppe just moved into the neighborhood and while I don't endorse his views he's a wonderful man whose works I read every night and whose world view I want to implement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Well to add to this, I know there probably isn't a satisfactory answer because the philosophy in general seems poorly thought out but how does libertarian philosophy deal with mentally incompetent adults? People with profound autism, mental retardation, schizophrenia or even transient conditions; severe depressive disorders can present with psychotic features, can you honestly argue that someone with bipolar in the manic phase of their condition can give meaningful consent sufficient to participate in this sort of system? The answer to that gets...strange. OK, humans are, in fact, fundamentally logical creatures in that we do what we think is best at the moment given the information we have. Emotions color that information. If I am scared "get the gently caress away" is probably the most logical conclusion. It may not seem logical to others but to me it is. Think about phobias. For a very long time I struggled with a fear of heights. Elevators bothered me so much I'd just flat out refuse to get on them. Emotions are really factual information. "I am afraid of *thing*" is a factual statement if I am, in fact, afraid of *thing* and will act accordingly. Most people are not afraid of elevators so my behavior seemed illogical. However, it was logical because I was avoiding the unpleasant feeling of being on an elevator. We avoid things we fear. Avoiding or being wary of things we're afraid of is of course logical. What was not logical was the fear of elevators. I had no reason to fear elevators but I did. Eventually I got over it and can ride them fine now (I still prefer to use the stairs because doing something like taking an elevator up a single floor makes me feel like a lazy rear end on account of the fact that I am still capable of walking up stairs). So if a commercial comes on preaching the virtues of an amazing new product I may very well think "wow that thing is good! I should get some of that thing." Once again it's a logical decision; "this is good" is the information. "I should buy good things I can afford" is too. However, that information may be wrong. Said thing may, in fact, be a hideous lie. That's why false advertising is, you know, slightly illegal but also why so many businesses just love spreading misinformation about their products around. Tobacco is one that comes to mind. Also in the case of tobacco the unpleasant feeling of shaking the addiction combined with the pleasure of smoking will often override the possibility of cancer in the future. Humans are also extremely habitual. Ceasing the habit of smoking takes like a month. Of course this is why the shenanigans the tobacco companies got up to is so horrible. They make smoking sound so good, be so addicting, and also so pleasurable that "you have a high chance of developing lung cancer and dying oh and also you won't be able to breathe at all when you're 55" is the lesser evil in the mind of a smoker. Yes, I used to smoke, why do you ask? The major assumption libertarians get insanely wrong is based on the information side not the logic side. One of the reasons emotional information scores so highly in decision making is that we know what we're feeling extremely quickly. It's the information we probably get first and we react to certain emotions really, really quickly. Fear is the biggest one. If we're confronted with something big and scary that wants to hurt us we need to decide what to do right loving now. There isn't time to consider all of the options so we ignore most of the information available. In basically no situation ever can we ever process, or even get access to, all of the information that would affect it. Nor will we react to it void of emotions. If I'm hungry at lunchtime I want some lunch. I probably have several options but if I'm in a hurry I'm grabbing the first thing I can find without researching the price. I may get ripped off in that situation. A purely logical thing would be to carefully consider how long it would take me to get to a further away place where I can get more calories for the same price or what the benefit of waiting an hour would be, if I can. The place also probably has enough options that I could deliberate on them for 20 minutes at the least. But I'm hungry now and I need to be somewhere in 30 minutes so I'm going to buy the first thing that looks good, scarf it down, and be on my way. That's where libertarians primarily fail. They operate under the assumption that everybody has perfect, equal access to perfect information which is, of course, literally impossible and only complicated by the fact that marketing exists. The job of marketing is literally to make things more appealing than they actually are which is once again why consumer protection and false advertising laws exist. I cannot, for example, advertise a vehicle that teleports that I'll sell for $500 each if I do not, in fact, have such a thing and will not have such a thing. If I just take the money and laugh then never deliver that's, you know, a slight problem. The libertarian view is that if somebody gets taken advantage of it's their own fault but I'm sure we've all been ripped off at least once in our lives. What seems like a good deal may later turn out to be a lemon. Entire industries are based on making cheap garbage that looks nice. In the case of the mentally challenged libertarians fall back on "charity" but even in that case the human is acting logically. However, they are failing to understand certain pieces of information and are operating on far simpler logical rules. People like schizophrenics are once again getting bad information. If the lamp tells a schizophrenic to murder a priest and they think "you know the lamp knows what it's talking about, Imma go kill a priest" then what you have is the pile of information labelled "things that are a good idea" suddenly contains "murder a priest." For most of us that gets filed under "things that are a bad idea" so we don't do it. How does a DRO deal with that? Badly, most likely. That'd be a prime example of "insanity" being a perfectly viable plea and is also why laws allowing for forced institutionalization exist in the first place but then it gets back to "OK, we have a person who is literally incapable of functioning. What do we do with them?" Libertarians will say "well charity, of course!" but if said schizophrenic does, in fact, murder a priest and the DRO decides to take money from him...uh...then what? How do you collect damages from somebody who may very well have no resources and also can't work? Charity has shown time and time again that it is insufficient. More importantly "information" is something that humans suck at. Neuroscience and psychology has shown pretty strongly that memory is fuzzy. We forget things and fail to remember things accurately. How we feel in a moment affects what we remember and how we remember it. What you tell me isn't going to be exactly what I remember. Hell, you might have outright lied and I believed you, which is going to gently caress up how I act if I recall that. The information is bad but I'm going to act as if it wasn't. Which is why information is the biggest failure of libertarianism and why this idea of "deregulate everything" is utter bullshit. We saw it in the work economy coming crashing down because of the fuckery of the financial sector. Then they blamed people taking bad loans, as if it was their fault the bank was saying "nah, everything is OK, you can afford this." Far as everybody knew "banks won't loan you money you can't afford" was filed under "sacred facts that are always true" but regulations exist to prevent certain classes of person from performing extreme economic fuckery because suddenly the potential losses from getting caught far outweigh the potential gains. In that case the most rational thing to do is put such regulations into place and saying "hey you fucks if you do *bad thing* we will destroy you. Don't even try." But then libertarians start screeching TYRANNY!!!! and argue in favor of a system where misinformation is a perfectly cool thing to spread. ... OK sorry that got way longer than I had wanted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Lord_Ventnor posted:I still don't know why I should care about property rights. Would be cool if a mod added "Because reasons." to the thread title.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:So how do the corporations exist without it? They don't exist. Groups of individuals may create contracts that mimic the function of one (with that poor guy over there given all the liability in exchange for a sandwich) but as they are now they won't exist. Want to try and start a business? Better be ready to enter slavery in case of default. No large group will use this danger to ensure competitors are unable to enter markets because people will shun the only source of that product in the region in favour of doing without since the one company is bad. So it's food and they own all the roads getting into your area? Clearly some people will convert their land to farmland in order to make money off the demand!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The answer to that gets...strange. OK, humans are, in fact, fundamentally logical creatures in that we do what we think is best at the moment given the information we have. Emotions color that information. If I am scared "get the gently caress away" is probably the most logical conclusion. It may not seem logical to others but to me it is. Think about phobias. For a very long time I struggled with a fear of heights. Elevators bothered me so much I'd just flat out refuse to get on them. Emotions are really factual information. "I am afraid of *thing*" is a factual statement if I am, in fact, afraid of *thing* and will act accordingly. quote:If I'm hungry at lunchtime I want some lunch. I probably have several options but if I'm in a hurry I'm grabbing the first thing I can find without researching the price. I may get ripped off in that situation. A purely logical thing would be to carefully consider how long it would take me to get to a further away place where I can get more calories for the same price or what the benefit of waiting an hour would be, if I can. The place also probably has enough options that I could deliberate on them for 20 minutes at the least. But I'm hungry now and I need to be somewhere in 30 minutes so I'm going to buy the first thing that looks good, scarf it down, and be on my way. But I'm a rational actor I swear! ToxicSlurpee posted:That's where libertarians primarily fail. They operate under the assumption that everybody has perfect, equal access to perfect information which is, of course, literally impossible and only complicated by the fact that marketing exists. The job of marketing is literally to make things more appealing than they actually are which is once again why consumer protection and false advertising laws exist. I cannot, for example, advertise a vehicle that teleports that I'll sell for $500 each if I do not, in fact, have such a thing and will not have such a thing. If I just take the money and laugh then never deliver that's, you know, a slight problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Correct me if I misunderstand praxeology, but what I don't get about libertarianism is their apparent assumption that people will be rational actors, coupled with a philosophy that actually rejects empiricism and says welp, you can't study patterns of behaviour because "humans act!" See, the information you have is "there is a bucket of calories nearby" on top of "I have things that need to be finished" mixed with "I cannot finish these things if I go somewhere else to acquire calories." That combination can override "eating this entire bucket of candy is a terrible idea." Which is also one of the things libertarianism gets extremely wrong. Humans think short term. We are very, very bad at long term planning. We can kind of sort of do it but that's a perfect example of where long term planning fails. Most of us plan to eat healthy but, well, sometimes stuff like that happens and by sometimes I mean all the goddamned time. It just breaks down even harder when you get into the monumentally complex poo poo that needs to happen to make any society function. This is part of why governments end up in place in the first place. Most of us are too busy to sit down and figure out a legal system. Those drat things are complex so we invented the idea that there would be people whose job is to sit down all day and figure that stuff out. It isn't perfect by any means but legal systems, regulations, and laws exist for a reason. Libertarianism takes the view of "it isn't perfect, burn it down." Anyway, that's why I say that libertarians get the information part hosed up. The assumption of praxeology is that everybody has perfect access to perfectly accurate information and will act purely logically with no emotional input. The reason praxeology and libertarian philosophy fall apart is because that is loving absurd. In a purely theoretical world where we all have perfect access to perfect, unfiltered information and infinite time to peruse it libertarianism would work just fine. The thing is...well...we live here and not there. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Anyway, that's why I say that libertarians get the information part hosed up. The assumption of praxeology is that everybody has perfect access to perfectly accurate information and will act purely logically with no emotional input. The reason praxeology and libertarian philosophy fall apart is because that is loving absurd. In a purely theoretical world where we all have perfect access to perfect, unfiltered information and infinite time to peruse it libertarianism would work just fine. This does explain why the perpetual motion machine is a plot point in Atlas Shrugged though, it takes place in ideal reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Its definitely one of those "imagine a perfect vacuum inhabited by perfect spheres..." situations. Yeah, libertarianism would probably work under certain conditions, but those conditions are pretty clearly not feasible given our current understanding of humanity. Its like that dude who shat up the RWM thread trying to tell everyone about his great idea to stop racism forever: "what if...nobody was racist??" I mean, that'd be swell, but...
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:44
|
|
