Hello everyone. This is my first post here.
On a little game I play (CyberNations, maybe some of you have heard of it), a thread was made where the thread-creator would try to defend or debate a position presented to him. I asked him to defend Libertarianism. He did so, and this is what he wrote:
Libertarianism, by which I assume you mean the Capitalist variety rather than the Anarchist one, is a perfectly defensible philosophy. It holds that people do not need much in the way of direct control and as such will do best when left to their own devices. Further, it recognizes, as most do, that when people work for their property they should be entitled to keep it. Those who do the best with property will get more of it, those who don't will not. While it may not provide the socio-economic security that other structures have, who is to say it is necessary to begin with? Some will die, some will live in squalor, and while not everyone can make it to the mountaintop, anyone can, and those who do will do so largely on their own merits. While it can be argued that much of those who do will be born into it, at the same time, why is that a problem? If one wants to spend their money on their family, to ensure they have a bright future, why shouldn't they? Why is giving money to people you know and love considered worse than giving it to poor people you don't even know? It may not be a level playing field but if someone produced legitimate labor in such a degree that they can unbalance things in their favor, why should they not be allowed to?
I would appreciate some comments on this. Is what he says true or makes sense? Please note, he is in fact a communist . Thanks!
Now ask him what he really thinks of libertarianism, given that the above was him playing devil's advocate.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
I asked, waiting for a response.
However another person replying in the same thread (an Anarcho-Syndicalist) said:
yeah who cares about poverty or injustice screw you I got mine
The thread creator replied with:
By what reason do I owe you anything? If someone wants to give money to charity, they are certainly welcome to. However, the very fact it is considered charity to give to the poor and the sick and the destitute should tell you there is no obligation there. It is hardly immoral to not go above and beyond your obligations. Sure, you may be a great guy if you help the little man, but by what logic are you required or obligated to do so?
Syndicalist:
Just saying that if you want to come up with a compelling moral defense of libertarianism, it might behoove you to try an approach that has a chance of convincing anyone with more empathy than Mr. Burns. Saying "so what?" to children dying of malnourishment and disease in order to defend your "right" to an unsustainable standard of living because present circumstances happen to make your abilities marketable probably isn't going to cut it.
I'm not really interested in posting their back and forth arguments, but I thought it would be a little interesting.
What is an "unsustainable" standard of living? One inconsistent with a free market. Anything else is fair game.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
That's not a defense, that's a poorly done caricature.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Jon Irenicus: What is an "unsustainable" standard of living?
What is an "unsustainable" standard of living?
How much I've come to dislike this word. It's a perfectly useful adjective and, used in the proper context, most certainly helpful, but every time I read it, I think of some enviro-commie trashing my truck and lecturing me that it was for the greater good.Brrr.
I got a reply.
I really consider it to be a doomed, incoherent ideology. Mostly it seems based on the notion that since the government screws everything up, surely your boss at work will get it right. A lack of oversight in a market economy leads to all manner of lying, cheating, stealing, and even less desirable activities in an effort to get to the top. Further, it leads to situations like the truck system, wherein employers pay their employees in vouchers for a company store (never enough to make end's meat, forcing them to run up a tab that would then be called were they ever to attempt to leave the company). Further, it leads to gross abuses of civil rights, like child labor, as employers scramble against one another to increase their labor pool. Sooner or later, companies will merge and buy each other out until one, or only a handful remain which becomes, in effect, a new government. When left to its own devices, wealth tends to concentrate which is why anti-trust laws were first created.The market in and of itself is bad but an unregulated one is immeasurably worse.
Blueline976: I got a reply. I really consider it to be a doomed, incoherent ideology. Mostly it seems based on the notion that since the government screws everything up, surely your boss at work will get it right. A lack of oversight in a market economy leads to all manner of lying, cheating, stealing, and even less desirable activities in an effort to get to the top. Further, it leads to situations like the truck system, wherein employers pay their employees in vouchers for a company store (never enough to make end's meat, forcing them to run up a tab that would then be called were they ever to attempt to leave the company). Further, it leads to gross abuses of civil rights, like child labor, as employers scramble against one another to increase their labor pool. Sooner or later, companies will merge and buy each other out until one, or only a handful remain which becomes, in effect, a new government. When left to its own devices, wealth tends to concentrate which is why anti-trust laws were first created.The market in and of itself is bad but an unregulated one is immeasurably worse.
"Two legs bad. Four legs good" (Animal Farm) lol
Who said the free market would be unregulated? Why do people think the State can only do this? There is such a thing as Common Law. You can become a grand juror today in a court of Common Law. And even though these types of courts are not set up by the State, the State by law still honors grand juries. Meaning, this is the free market at work, and the State has not, as of yet, rid it. If you are not from the U.S., then jurisdictions do not abundantly honor Grand Juries and the Common Law, but it does not mean it doesn't work daily; just not formalized, and is corrupted by the State you currently live in.
Blueline976's commie friend: ...The market in and of itself is bad but an unregulated one is immeasurably worse.
...The market in and of itself is bad but an unregulated one is immeasurably worse.
... and that's why the greatest evils against humanity were performed by highly regulated states, e.g. mao, stalin, hitler, lincoln?
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
Please ask this person to provide proof or an example of an unregulated free market (since we do not have one).
Will do.
BTW: Thanks for all of your comments and replies :)
He replies with:
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone is false. An unregulated free market is the absence of coercion, or the ability of private citizens to arrange security for themselves and their private property. Sierra Leone had neither.
Could you provide examples?
The wiki (yes, I know, not great for factual information) says they have a central bank.
I see a lot of foregone conclusions. Where is the reasoning?
wilderness: Blueline976: I got a reply. I really consider it to be a doomed, incoherent ideology. Mostly it seems based on the notion that since the government screws everything up, surely your boss at work will get it right. A lack of oversight in a market economy leads to all manner of lying, cheating, stealing, and even less desirable activities in an effort to get to the top. Further, it leads to situations like the truck system, wherein employers pay their employees in vouchers for a company store (never enough to make end's meat, forcing them to run up a tab that would then be called were they ever to attempt to leave the company). Further, it leads to gross abuses of civil rights, like child labor, as employers scramble against one another to increase their labor pool. Sooner or later, companies will merge and buy each other out until one, or only a handful remain which becomes, in effect, a new government. When left to its own devices, wealth tends to concentrate which is why anti-trust laws were first created.The market in and of itself is bad but an unregulated one is immeasurably worse. "Two legs bad. Four legs good" (Animal Farm) lol Who said the free market would be unregulated? Why do people think the State can only do this? There is such a thing as Common Law. You can become a grand juror today in a court of Common Law. And even though these types of courts are not set up by the State, the State by law still honors grand juries. Meaning, this is the free market at work, and the State has not, as of yet, rid it. If you are not from the U.S., then jurisdictions do not abundantly honor Grand Juries and the Common Law, but it does not mean it doesn't work daily; just not formalized, and is corrupted by the State you currently live in.
I'd go with two legs:Just wrap up your one image response with a lenghty, procrastinated diatribe on how communism, contrary to majority believe, will not lead everyone to Kobold, but will lead people to embrace libertarianism. This is mainly because once everyone realizes what a great time their having, they'll just get too bored with themselves.So, libertarnism then reverts to mutualism because hey, the commies are bored of the libertarians yelling at those kids who won't get off their damn lawns! Finally, everyone eventually gets bored with the drama of The Reel World of political theatre & they revert to anarchism. At some point, a bald man in a red uniform suit, aboard a spaceship, addresses the planet assuming that there's a world government there to help him find out who is going to stop First Contact, but he shrugs off at the appearence of the 4-Chan flag of "The LOLganistan Federation of Pirate Territories", and returns back to his time of the 24th century, with the remains of Christopher Lloyd in tow, which will provide an obviously humorus bottle-neck show for the audience. Scarcity is eventually addressed when man & machine unify accordingly to The Singularity, which was only possible when everyone & anyone had access to any & all technology, & not just the hand-me downs from the gracious natural elites and/or oligarchies, and was able to mass produce useful things via incredibly mobile, nanotech factories. A new day of the week, previosul Sunday, dubbed TGICEMCAHIT (Thank God I Can Eat My Cake And Have It Too, or it's colloquial term "Cakeday") is established.Humanity eventually coallesces into a collective known simply as Dues & after costructing various Dyson Sphere's around the galaxy, among other things, Dues then decides they are going to both simunetansouly restart their existience, while exploring the rest of the universe at the same time, via some incredibly complex mathematical explanation that probably involves chromotons & extra dimensions. The Big Bang occurs, ya da da da, some lemmings jump off a cliff, Marx, Mises, Rothbard, Einstien, etc. are born. The moon landing is fak-oops. And finally, Kevin Carson eventually spends 4 years writing a book about some guy with his head up his ass; a tribute to Salinger, obviously. In summation, there is no Keysa Söze, just as there is no communism. Nope, in the long run, we are our own grandpas. T H E <>E N D- Cast (In Order Of Appearence) -Nitroadict..........THE VOICE James Woods.. Himself Communism........Benny The DogLibertarianism.....Casey AffleckAnarchism............ Gary OldmanCreative Consultants....... Soren Kierkegaard Alburt Camus Master Shake Mr.1001nights Lighting............................ LCD TechnologiesBest Boy........................... Friedrich Nietzsche Writer................................. NitroadictSpecial Effects................. TiMe PaRaDOX StudiosPrivate Investigator............... Eddie ValiantCredits Operator.............. A monkeya kthxbai! Production, in association with Mises @ The Movies (tm)NO TIMELINES WERE LEFT ALTERED IN THE MAKING OF THIS POST
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict, that was awesome! When's the trailers coming out!
Did you make that up on the spot?
Blueline976: Could you provide examples? The wiki (yes, I know, not great for factual information) says they have a central bank.
No. I can't provide examples. It is blatantly obvious. I gave a definition of a free market. Sierra Leone does not fit it. There currently is no free market, anywhere in the world, and one could argue, there may never have been one. So for someone to argue that free markets are bad, or that they have failed, is a blatant falsehood, unless they can explain what failures can occur in the absence of coercion or the decentralization of power.
I see, and thank you. I just didn't want to walk into an argument without having any specific examples as to why Sierra Leone isn't a free market. Now I see that it doesn't matter much, heh.
wilderness:Nitroadict, that was awesome! When's the trailers coming out! Did you make that up on the spot?
I agree. Nitro, you should re-blog that on SAC.
Blueline976: I see, and thank you. I just didn't want to walk into an argument without having any specific examples as to why Sierra Leone isn't a free market. Now I see that it doesn't matter much, heh.
I learn best by debating. I try to take a position I feel strongly about, and defend it. By defending it, I find the strengths and weaknesses of my own argument.
But I have never engaged in an argument, and then asked other people to formulate my responses or opinion for me. I wouldn't learn anything that way.
It's a lot of work, but if you do the thinking on these responses, you will be a better person for it. You will realize where you are right and where you are wrong.
Sounds like you are up against some hardcore morons. There may not be a lot to be gained, but an increase in the ability to debate morons, which has questionable value. Depends how much you like midget punching trolls. I've mostly gotten over it. Now if I debate a troll, it's for the benefit of the people following the discussion, whether the troll cries or asks his mommy for a hug is irrelevant to me. He's just a prop in my presentation.
One of the thoughts that went through my head when creating this little thread here is that I wouldn't directly be debating this guy. It still worries me, however I knew that I would most likely end up losing. Not that I care all that much. This guy is very well versed in communism and his side of political/social/economic theory in general.
Debating is a great way to refine one's argument. I'm going to take control of this little debate after he answers the "There are no free markets blah blah blah, etc" response. I just needed a specific on Sierra Leone :P
Contrary to popular belief, these guy(s) aren't morons. Far from it. They may be communists, but I respect them for their knowledge of their beliefs. I can't say the same for myself. I'm still a learning-libertarian, heh. I suppose everyone is, but I still have a ways to go.
Blueline976:I respect them for their knowledge of their beliefs.
Right, but communism is irrational. So even if they believe it and even if they understand it to a high level, that doesn't validate communism.
Blueline976:I can't say the same for myself. I'm still a learning-libertarian, heh. I suppose everyone is, but I still have a ways to go.
We only stop learning when we give up or die. You're doing fine. Ask questions, but try to carry your own water first.
Never said it did validate it :P. It's just a tad overwhelming when an argument is one-sided because a guy is flipping through the Communist Manifesto while debating.
Thanks to all of you. Maybe I'll keep this updated so you can all laugh at his arguments?
This particular individual might not be one. He still is in the grips of an irrational philosophy though as LS said. And I find some of them downright evil, to the extent for instance that they sympathise more with fascism than free markets. Then I have no qualms in losing any respect I had for them.
Blueline976:Maybe I'll keep this updated so you can all laugh at his arguments?
I don't see a problem with that, although I am more interested to read (with pride) the progression of your arguments.
liberty student: Blueline976:Maybe I'll keep this updated so you can all laugh at his arguments? I don't see a problem with that, although I am more interested to read (with pride) the progression of your arguments.
Maybe Blueline is trying to find the principle or premise that helps him to understand and give view to his own arguments? For instance, that whole unregulated thing about the free market and how some people tend to think their is no law in the free market. If people understood the basic principle about the free market, property rights, and even the more basic assertions that rights are not privileges but natural conclusions of life and thus the respect of individuals, then people would have a stepping off point to think on their own.
I know, personally, I only recently came to know what property rights are. They didn't teach it in the public school system I was in. I'm in my third decade of living on this earth and I'm only now coming to understand that there is such as a thing as property rights, natural rights, and Common Law, etc... And now I come to find out along this awakening of mine within this year that those inalienable rights spoken of, yes in a State document, have nothing to do with the State. In those days it was more commonly understood that rights are just natural conclusions of life and responsible freedom. I mean about a month ago I ran across somebody that tried to argue with me about privacy rights. That I have no right to privacy anywhere including my house cause it's not law written down in the Constitution. I had to explain those rights are not laws the founders just made up to write down on paper. They were commonly recognized natural rights in those days that spur off the principle of property rights. He still tried to argue I didn't have the right to privacy, but somebody else interjected that the Declaration of Independence mentions that there are other rights. That man still came back saying the Declaration of Independence is not law only the Constitution could count as law. But then we had to point him in the direction of understanding what property rights meant and how it is a principle that's been around for quite a long time and only somebody now a days could come up with such an absurd argument that I can't have privacy in my own house. That's the kind of people we are up against.
just interjecting my little spiel, thanks
"Maybe Blueline is trying to find the principle or premise that helps him to understand and give view to his own arguments?"
Precisely!
Also, I will be calling the person I am debating "Mr. X." It's mysterious, edgy, and saves me from calling him "that guy."
Blueline976: "Maybe Blueline is trying to find the principle or premise that helps him to understand and give view to his own arguments?" Precisely! Also, I will be calling the person I am debating "Mr. X." It's mysterious, edgy, and saves me from calling him "that guy."
If you didn't pick up on it in my previous post in this thread, I would start with "property rights". I don't know of any book or essay that discusses property rights exclusively but it is the principle underlying Libertarianism. Property rights are at the forefront of any culture that espouses freedom it just so happens to be that I find libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics takes these natural rights of individuals more seriously than any other manifestation of these rights that I know about. To first understand property, it is easier to understand the first property you own, which is you. You are born into a family and thus are under the care of parents that living within their labor (the house he or she worked for and thus own, etc...) you therefore are subject to them for you live on their property. For property is also what you labor, and if you work for another business that business trades off your labor for a wage. That wage is the fruit of labor as well. It is your property. It used to be in the United States after they gained their independence that all people used to own their land, it was their property. They therefore paid no taxes on their land. The land was theirs to do anything with as long as they did not harm another's property. After the Civil War then slowly most people began to lose the title of their own property (called allodial title) and got deeds instead. Property taxes eventually came along, meaning, the people didn't outrightly own their land, they now had to pay a rent, a tax. I believe Texas is the only U.S. state left in which you can still get allodial title for your land property and it considered to be strictly yours and no government can say or do anything on your land property. Same goes for permits to have a gun, which incidentally happened after the Civil War too. It is a natural right to defend yourself thus carry a weapon. According to the principle of property rights therefore it is a right, not a privilege to have a gun to protect your own life. Yet that's exactly what a permit is. Permit... in other words, permission, it is the State saying the gun owner has permission to have a gun, and therefore also has permission to defend their own life with the gun. Yet according to property rights one does not need permission to defend their own life. It is a right.
I gave you some true examples, but if you get into "property rights" conceptually enough you'll be able to expand your own thinking from that premise. If anybody else has concise sources that strictly deal with "property rights" I wouldn't mind learning more about them as well. I've read about them in Rothbard's "For a New Liberty:..." so I know they are found in that source, but they only come up in one of the chapters. I've come across this principle ever now and then and I've discussed it with other people, but I don't think I've come across a source that discusses it only. If anybody has more to offer?
Oh, that's right. I also did have this link to the 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Badnarik. There are Constitutional Classes on this link of his and his whole first class is dedicated to "rights". So he goes into property rights and such. He even points out that if you don't understand "rights", then you won't understand the rest of his class on those video links. I have yet to watch all the videos, but I did watch the whole first one on "rights". It was very interesting and I would like to finish watching them all. I just haven't had the time with all these other projects I'm involved in. Here's the link:
http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik
Blueline976: Never said it did validate it :P. It's just a tad overwhelming when an argument is one-sided because a guy is flipping through the Communist Manifesto while debating. Thanks to all of you. Maybe I'll keep this updated so you can all laugh at his arguments?
Any debate will only progress to the extent that each participant has some common ground with the other. Which is exactly why this won't go anywhere, you two simply do not share any of the same values. Any debate will be useless, especially since both parties are more concerned with "winning" the debate than you are with reaching any sort of agreement regarding the truth.
Communists favour equality, liberals favour liberty and prosperity. The two latter values are not compatible with forced equality (driven by envy). Give up, your time is better spent elsewhere.
GilesStratton: Any debate will only progress to the extent that each participant has some common ground with the other. Which is exactly why this won't go anywhere, you two simply do not share any of the same values. Any debate will be useless, especially since both parties are more concerned with "winning" the debate than you are with reaching any sort of agreement regarding the truth. Communists favour equality, liberals favour liberty and prosperity. The two latter values are not compatible with forced equality (driven by envy). Give up, your time is better spent elsewhere.
So very true, most of the time when Im dealing with marxists I focus in showing them the weak spots in their ideology rather than actually reaching an understanding....... of course they do the same
Although it might be a waste of time to argue with this guy, he finally replied:
Me (using the "prepared statement") :
Consider this definition: A true "free market" (unregulated and such) includes the absence of coercion, or the ability of citizens to create security for themselves and their property. Also consider the that there are virtually no truly free/unregulated markets in the world. How does Sierra Leone still fit? To me, saying that free markets are bad while they essentially don't exist doesn't make sense. Unless, you could provide examples of the failures of the decentralization of power and absence of coercion.
Him:
Absence of coercion is impossible. If I am hungry I am under pressure independent from my will to secure resources. The hungrier I am, the more pressure against me exists. If you have something I want that I would have greater difficulty acquiring elsewhere, I am under pressure to get it from you. If a lack of any coercion at all is required for a free market, you may as well endorse the concept of human society without people. The concept is meaningless on its face. What you can do for a free market, however, is a market based economy in which there is little to no government intervention wherein capital and investment exists. The fact of the matter is a number of those exist not one of them is a pleasant place to live.
I didn't think he understood the coercion part until the second part of his reply. I believe that what "no coercion" means (in an economic context) is absence from a government force. I'm fairly sure he said this in the second paragraph (where he said "little to no government intervention")
He sort of dropped the ball with the last sentence, however. What "number" of countries have truly free markets if there aren't any?
Blueline976: Although it might be a waste of time to argue with this guy, he finally replied: Me (using the "prepared statement") : Consider this definition: A true "free market" (unregulated and such) includes the absence of coercion, or the ability of citizens to create security for themselves and their property. Also consider the that there are virtually no truly free/unregulated markets in the world. How does Sierra Leone still fit? To me, saying that free markets are bad while they essentially don't exist doesn't make sense. Unless, you could provide examples of the failures of the decentralization of power and absence of coercion. Him: Absence of coercion is impossible.
Absence of coercion is impossible.
probably true
Blueline976: If I am hungry I am under pressure independent from my will to secure resources. The hungrier I am, the more pressure against me exists. If you have something I want that I would have greater difficulty acquiring elsewhere, I am under pressure to get it from you. If a lack of any coercion at all is required for a free market, you may as well endorse the concept of human society without people. The concept is meaningless on its face.
If I am hungry I am under pressure independent from my will to secure resources. The hungrier I am, the more pressure against me exists. If you have something I want that I would have greater difficulty acquiring elsewhere, I am under pressure to get it from you. If a lack of any coercion at all is required for a free market, you may as well endorse the concept of human society without people. The concept is meaningless on its face.
probably true, he will kill for food when he's hungry, we all now know. And that, apparently, will happen whether it's a free market or a corruption thereof (State presence). So will the State change his hunger pains and make him not kill for food? If so, then it looks like he needs somebody, anybody to control his own actions. Is he a boy still?
Blueline976: What you can do for a free market, however, is a market based economy in which there is little to no government intervention wherein capital and investment exists. The fact of the matter is a number of those exist not one of them is a pleasant place to live.
What you can do for a free market, however, is a market based economy in which there is little to no government intervention wherein capital and investment exists. The fact of the matter is a number of those exist not one of them is a pleasant place to live.
examples?
Blueline976: I didn't think he understood the coercion part until the second part of his reply. I believe that what "no coercion" means (in an economic context) is absence from a government force. I'm fairly sure he said this in the second paragraph (where he said "little to no government intervention") He sort of dropped the ball with the last sentence, however. What "number" of countries have truly free markets if there aren't any?
Yeah, he dropped the ball. I've seen pictures of nomads in Mongolia, and they smile and laugh still. They know about cities were the government exists and they aren't leaving everything behind to live there. Doesn't mean we all have to leave the cities, but what's he driving at?
Wow did he even try? There's no response to speak of. To his first "argument", is it "meaningless" to speak of a society where rape isn't sanctioned? Based on his reasoning, yes. He is conflating what people might do with whether that is what they ought to. It just becomes clearer if you use the example of rape (or murder - murder becomes murkier though because it can be justified in self-defence.) To his second, he didn't even bother to show how that is true.
I don't even know where to begin on how to reply to his post, to be honest. I don't think much of it made sense.
His assertion about coercion is flawed.
While there may be pressure to eat your child or rob your spouse, men have free will. To say that coercion is inevitable means that we're not capable of rational thought, but that we're slaves to our physical desires.
There are numerous examples where starving people do not become cannibals, so it seem to me his premise is very flimsy.
liberty student: His assertion about coercion is flawed. While there may be pressure to eat your child or rob your spouse, men have free will. To say that coercion is inevitable means that we're not capable of rational thought, but that we're slaves to our physical desires. There are numerous examples where starving people do not become cannibals, so it seem to me his premise is very flimsy.
I agree liberty student. I couldn't make much sense of the guy's assertion. I don't know if he meant in an idealistic sense that murder, rape, and theft will always be present around the world, which is probably true. Yet, if he meant it in the sense you make here that biological desires overcome rational thought, then yes, "There are numerous example...". I think it's due to his premise is flawed and therefore doesn't provide enough clarity to his own statements. I find myself guessing to what he actually meant.
I asked him to clarify what he meant in my reply. Here is my reply:
Me (first part of his post):
I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at. Could you clarify this post? In the mean time, here is my response based on what I understood:If you are hungry, doing seemingly crazy ideas to ease the hunger might come to mind. Some people follow through with those ideas. But it sounds like you're saying that people in difficult situations aren't capable of rational thought or clear-thinking. What I meant by a lack of coercion is a lack of government force and influence on the market. You pretty much covered that in the second part of your post, however.
(Second part):
Again, do you have examples of free markets? Or are you saying that markets without coercion are unpleasant to live in? Your posts confused the hell out of me.
I admit, I stole a bit of the "rational thought" part from what you guys posted. Not because I needed an argument, but because it made sense.
You can't steal what is freely given.