EvilSocialistFellow:I know Liam Antony; we debated on another forum rather extensively while I was a socialist. He is a diehard anarcho-capitalist. But he is also a Neolibertarian who believes that before anarchy is achieved, it is a legitimate function of Western states to overthrow blood thirsty tyrants overseas.
I think that could be done much more efficiently with a free market system. Government military isn't very cost effective.
EmperorNero:I think that could be done much more efficiently with a free market system. Government military isn't very cost effective.
I agree that government military is not as cost effective as a private one would be, but we are, really and truly, assuming that it would be in the commercial interests of a PDA to wage wars abroad (it is possible some may donate charitably, however we cannot base any ideology upon this assumption alone) - and this is possible if the PDAs are employed, by, lets say a few businesses abroad. But fascism and military dictatorships tend to occur in poor, third world countries with poor economies, thereby, it is not in the interests of PDAs to actively engage in the risk of taking on a full scale military dictatorship. Especially not if the foreign state can bribe them away. Those are my thoughts.
I have never been to the US and so do not know what it is like. Britain is not a perfect place but individual rights and civil liberties are respected by the cultural norm. The government's power is, obtrusive, but limited. Our markets are relatively liberalised.
Britain violates human rights to a greater extent than most overseas tyrants do, except it does so abroad and to foreigners, rather than at home.
Or would you prefer western states allowed fundamentally unlibertarian atrocities such as Unit 731 (http://www.toddlertime.com/bobbystringer/unit-731.htm) and the Rape of Nankin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_massacre) to happen in the name of black and white non-interventionism?
Why phrase your argument specifically in terms of western states permitting non-western perpetrated atrocities?
Marko:Britain violates human rights more than most overseas tyrants do. Except it does so abroad and to foreigners, rather than at home.
Our government/military violate rights abroad, there is no denying this but not on the same scale as some fascist dictatorships.
?
Japan is not a western state.
A meanigless statement. A waste of space. Obviously Britain's human rights record is superior to that of some fascist dictatorships, much inferior to that of some other fascist dictatorships.
EvilSocialistFellow:I agree that government military is not as cost effective as a private one would be, but we are, really and truly, assuming that it would be in the commercial interests of a PDA to wage wars abroad (it is possible some may donate charitably, however we cannot base any ideology upon this assumption alone) - and this is possible if the PDAs are employed, by, lets say a few businesses abroad. But fascism and military dictatorships tend to occur in poor, third world countries with poor economies, thereby, it is not in the interests of PDAs to actively engage in the risk of taking on a full scale military dictatorship. Especially not if the foreign state can bribe them away. Those are my thoughts.
Not for commercial interests, no, it would be much more like a private charity. I'm picturing it as a club that all right-wingers join if they want to organize a military. Of course the main purpose of such an organization would be national defense (and playing with guns). People would donate their money and some would volunteer to fight. You know, the lefties would join foundations that own the forests and the whales and right-wingers would join the national militia to bring democracy to the world. We wouldn't all force each others to pay for the statism we like. People seem to be willing to pay for the military and volunteer in the current system, so why not when it's voluntary and have a say in who to invade? It wouldn't really be gritty fighting on the ground with casualties, but supplying arms and air-support to local rebels. Often it would be enough to assassinate the dictator. If evil dictators got assassinated regularly, they would essentially have to live underground, which would take a lot of the fun out of being an evil dictator. And free market countries would have such vastly better military hardware that they could take on any poor military dictatorship.
EmperorNero:Not for commercial interests, no, it would be much more like a private charity. I'm picturing it as a club that all right-wingers join if they want to organize a military. Of course the main purpose the militia would be national defense. People would donate their money and some would volunteer to fight. You know, the lefties would join foundations that own the forests and the whales and right-wingers would join the national militia to bring democracy to the world. We wouldn't all force each others to pay for the statism we like. People seem to be willing to pay for the military and volunteer in the current system, so why not when it's voluntary and they get a say in who the militia invates? It wouldn't really be gritty fighting on the ground with casualties, but supplying arms and air-support to local rebels. Often it would be enough to assassinate the dictator. If evil dictators got assassinated regularly, they would essentially have to live underground, which would take a lot of the fun out of being an evil dictator. Free market countries would have such vastly better military hardware that they could take on any poor military dictatorship.
The thing is, the majority of people just couldn't give a toss; right wing, left wing, whatever. They simply wouldn't donate to charity. Even if they would, we cannot base an idea on the assumption that they would. People that join the military do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts but to make a living plus they get to be all macho. I find the theme of businesses militarily defending their commercial interests abroad more convincing.
EvilSocialistFellow:The thing is, the majority of people just couldn't give a toss; right wing, left wing, whatever. They simply wouldn't donate to charity. Even if they would, we cannot base an idea on the assumption that they would.
Sure you're still not a socialist?
evilsocialist:People that join the military do not do so out of the goodness of their hearts but to make a living plus they get to be all macho.
That's true, although I doubt you'll ever hear a soldier admit that.
People would donate their money and some would volunteer to fight. You know, the lefties would join foundations that own the forests and the whales and right-wingers would join the national militia to bring democracy to the world.
Privately conducted "humanitarian interventionism" has many upsides compared to statist meddling. For one should the human rights violations cease, many of the volunteers will return home and their funding will dry up. This gives the rights violator an incentive to improve his behaviour.
On the other hand a state military intervention once enacted can never be called off. Since it becomes an issue of "credibility" or imperial prestige it must be waged until a military triumph can be claimed.
liberty student:Sure you're still not a socialist?
Your confusing socialism for anything that's remotely interventionist.
EvilSocialistFellow:Your confusing socialism for anything that's remotely interventionist.
Interventionism is socialism.
I'm not trying to insult you, but I am trying to challenge you to think about your premises. If you really accept markets, then accept that some people don't give a damn about genocide in Darfur. That's reality. There are no Utopian markets, and trying to convince yourself that there is some theoretical way that markets could handle a [sic] problem, is still no guarantee that it will actually happen if the time comes.
The only way to guarantee an intervention is to use force and suppress voluntary action.
liberty student:Interventionism is socialism.
I'd flip that statement around; socialism is interventionist. Subtle difference.
I'm not trying to insult you
I know.
If you really accept markets, then accept that some people don't give a damn about genocide in Darfur. That's reality. There are no Utopian markets, and trying to convince yourself that there is some theoretical way that markets could handle a [sic] problem, is still no guarantee that it will actually happen if the time comes.
My problem is not so much the market not being able to handle a given problem but a given scenario in which the market is not able to handle a problem that could have been handled by the state.
My belief is that the initiation of force by the state is justified on the provisio that there would be greater initiation of force without that state intervention. This doesn't mean that I think anarchy would necessarily be more violent or chaotic or whatever but that I need to understand why there would be less trends towards to the initiation of force. For instance, if the state can overthrow foreign despots and the violence used to do so is less than the violence that would have happened if they had not overthrown the foreign despot, the action, in my mind is rectified. However, it could well be the case that the market could handle the situation better. In which case, how can the market handle the problem of foreign despots which the state can handle by waging war?
the problem of foreign despots which the state can handle by waging war?
False premise.
EvilSocialistFellow: In which case, how can the market handle the problem of foreign despots which the state can handle by waging war?
Whose problem are the foreign despots, and according to whose subjective values would the state handle it better? I have problems too. If I found that the market cannot handle my (subjectively valued) "problem" of others having more than I, should I advocate that the state handle the problem "better"?
z1235:Whose problem are the foreign despots, and according to whose subjective values would the state handle it better? I have problems too. If I found that the market cannot handle my (subjectively valued) "problem" of others having more than I, should I advocate that the state handle the problem "better"?
If you want to get into the details we can define 'better' objectively in terms of 'the most amount of people killed'. Objectivity in calculation is fine provided it is based on a testable hypothesis or statistical evidence, for instance GDP to measure a country's economic out put. I believe more people will die as a result of intervention in Libya. Thereby, I am opposed to interventon in Libya. But if there was a legitimate circumstance whereby state intervention meant less people died, I would not oppose it.
The problem you mention here about the state military not handling your own subjectively valued problems more efficiently than a private defence agency is quite obvious; the military is not a candy floss business. (Not trying to be antagonistic here, by the way). Most people wouldn't buy a service unless it directly benefitted them somehow (I am assuming that the vast proportion of action is driven, first and foremost, by psychological egoism rather than compassionate self-interest - i.e. charitable love for others). So its fine if we are talking about a service that provides the individual with food, clothing, etc. but not when we are talking about a service that is highly politically motivated, purely because most people would not fund a private defence agency to intervene in foreign countries in the absence of a state owned military so it is not a question of which meets the consumer demands more effectively when there is no consumer.
Marko:False premise.
If I knew how to update my signature with a statement that my knowledge is severely limited I would. I am merely trying to learn; I am not claiming I know as much about economics and so forth as some of the main people on here. Why is it a false premise?
EvilSocialistFellow:...so it is not a question of which meets the consumer demands more effectively when there is no consumer.
So whose demand is being met, then?
z1235:So whose demand is being met, then?
Well demand is effectively desire backed by purchasing power. So there is no demand in such an instance. I would say military intervention should be used whenever it is the desire of the majority to overthrow a tyrannical dictatorship or, whenever it is the desire of a majority to protect themselves from foreign state invasion (for instance when Kuwait was being invaded by Iraq and we stepped into help them - yes I know the interest was primarily in oil but the intervention was none the less justifiable on humanitarian grounds). Libya, for example is no such place where the majority wish to overthrow Qaddafi. As such, intervention is pointless since there will be a new tyrannical regime and untold losses of life. Yes, I know the majority believing something does not make it true but if they desire to overthrow a statist regime then it is no longer the case that they are trying to impose their beliefs on someone else; they are merely trying to free themselves. Why not help them? Would charity be enough to provide the services required to help them? Taxation to fund wars requires aggression against people in the home country but, (assuming all goes 'well'), the aggression used against the people abroad is reduced.
I know that Neolibertarians argue for this reason that their ideology is consistent with the non-aggression axiom. After all, if you are against violence, you must be against violence used by dictators both at home and abroad.
I don't really take any stance. I am just trying to understand the Libertarian stance, see if it is reasonable and see if I can adopt it as well. Believe me, I want to adopt it; it is cognitive dissonance for me to accept foreign intervention. But I cannot see any alternative to it at the moment. So I would like to here what the market based alternatives are. Some people like to throw the; "well if your so concerned about foreign dictatorship, why don't you pay for it?" To which my response would be "it is not enough for just me and a relatively small minority of charitable individuals to fund and raise awareness of such a cause. Hence, force is regrettably necessary (unless you can come up with a better alternative *I'm waiting to hear, eagerly*) to fund such a cause."
EvilSocialistFellow:My belief is that the initiation of force by the state is justified on the provisio that there would be greater initiation of force without that state intervention.
That POV is not compatible with markets. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
The state only can do one thing over the market. Initiate force. The market can render defensive force. So why must the state be an aggressor in order to stop aggression? This is the disconnect. Everything the state does is as an aggressor. To help people in Darfur, it has to harm people somewhere else.
liberty student:That POV is not compatible with markets. You want to have your cake and eat it too. The state only can do one thing over the market. Initiate force. The market can render defensive force. So why must the state be an aggressor in order to stop aggression? This is the disconnect. Everything the state does is as an aggressor. To help people in Darfur, it has to harm people somewhere else.
Ok, I get all of that. But what alternative solution can be offered by a market strategy?
If I'm not mistaken, you are asking how can the market help the people in Darfur?
If so the answer to that question is very easy.
Drew:If I'm not mistaken, you are asking how can the market help the people in Darfur? If so the answer to that question is very easy.
Yes, I mean specifically how can the market protect people from tyranny/war/conflict et cetera abroad and why can it do so better than the state?
Sorry, I 'd like to see if I still got it right. I should have been more clear. So I'll address two questions, just in case. I only have the answer for one.
1.Are you asking how can, let's say, a stateless USA with a free market help the people in Darfur?
2.Or how can the idea of free market help the people in Darfur if they implemented it?
1. If the USA disbanded the government, we would have charities that will certainly volunteer to help. We'll probably be bombarded with commercials that will do their best to persuade people to offer help . The free market solution all sums up to "if you want to help, you are free to do so". If you're pessimistic, you will probably think nothing can be done.
I know many people don't care about the war in Darfur(or any other war for that matter), but they can be convinced to, through peacefull ways, btw. And, I've learned that just because there's a huge hand of terrible people out there, that doesn't necesarily mean there aren't any decent folks who are willing to help. The Christian organizations have been sending missionaries all around the world(although not sure exactly what their true intentions were) and they've been doing a pretty decent job.
That's all I can tell you. If you think the government can do a better job by using your tax money, in order to end a war that you may or may not care of, then you have to try and prove how that can be possible. I won't bother to point out that you are paying for something you don't want to and is probably of no use to you. Every war the USA was involved in, ended up in a total disaster.
2. Darfur cannot establish a free market at this time. I'm positive that they are going through a religious conflict(please correct me on this one). There are some things that the market can't solve and neither can a government.
Concerning this question:
I'm not really that knowledgeable in economics yet, so I can't really answer that question. I'm still having a hard time with "Man, Economy and the State".
EvilSocialistFellow:Yes, I mean specifically how can the market protect people from tyranny/war/conflict et cetera abroad and why can it do so better than the state?
The honest answer is that we don't know. How is irrelevant. If we knew, we could plan an economy, and it is an important Austrian insight that we cannot plan an economy.
The fact of the matter is that to use the state to fight abroad, you must violate rights at home and abroad. The market responds to demand, if people want to assist people who need defense, then entrepreneurs and specialists will offer services and goods to facilitate such a thing. The Red Cross is a good example of a NGO that acts in a similar capacity.
If your support for markets is dependent on outcome, then you will never be consistently happy with the market. I support the market because it is moral and consistent with my ends, not because it produces the most expedient results.
Marko: I have never been to the US and so do not know what it is like. Britain is not a perfect place but individual rights and civil liberties are respected by the cultural norm. The government's power is, obtrusive, but limited. Our markets are relatively liberalised. Britain violates human rights to a greater extent than most overseas tyrants do, except it does so abroad and to foreigners, rather than at home.
So, you think hanging gay people in Iran is equal to supressing free speech in the UK?
Have you ever been to the Middle East and seen women “rights” there, and compared them to the UK? I don't understand how anybody can say this nonsense?
Why do you think immigrants and political-refugees flock to the West? Because thinks are so much worse here than in Iran, for instance! Come on?!
Marko:People would donate their money and some would volunteer to fight. You know, the lefties would join foundations that own the forests and the whales and right-wingers would join the national militia to bring democracy to the world. Privately conducted "humanitarian interventionism" has many upsides compared to statist meddling. For one should the human rights violations cease, many of the volunteers will return home and their funding will dry up. This gives the rights violator an incentive to improve his behaviour. On the other hand a state military intervention once enacted can never be called off. Since it becomes an issue of "credibility" or imperial prestige it must be waged until a military triumph can be claimed.
That is exactly what I meant earlier when I said this sounds wonderful but has nothing to do with reality around us - here-and-now? I’m reminded of Chomsky. He has never spent a day in his life with a job outside of academia. So, obviiioously, businesses are exploiting everything and everyone. Durh!
Where are the private humanitarian intervention groups that will remove tyrants? People keep on bleating about this on internet forums and haven't looked out of the window and realised that no such exists.
I think it is important to pick the better of two options in life (even if it includes the state), whilst advocating for anarchy in the meantime.
Marko:But he is also a Neolibertarian who believes that before anarchy is achieved, it is a legitimate function of Western states to overthrow blood thirsty tyrants overseas. What about the legitimate function of tyrants overseas to overthrow the warmongering Western states? Inability to see things from more than one side of things is indeed a bitch.
But he is also a Neolibertarian who believes that before anarchy is achieved, it is a legitimate function of Western states to overthrow blood thirsty tyrants overseas.
What about the legitimate function of tyrants overseas to overthrow the warmongering Western states?
Inability to see things from more than one side of things is indeed a bitch.
You’re objectively and passively pro-fascism – at least not in your neighbourhood.
Dictatorships and fascism is a product of the socialist mindset which is dependent on authoritarianism and aggression. We probably agree on this. But you seem to think that having a dictator next door is fine for you? If anything, 20th century history shows it is the opposite. Kuwaiti citizens would probably having a thing-or-two tell you!
So, I believe in a strong foreign policy that is based on unilateral preemption (in the 21st century) to destroy those who wish impose a caliphate or kill US citizens. I don’t really buy into an argument of intervention on purely humanitarian grounds. I started this discussion to see if anyone had any reasonable suggestions on how to deal with problems – like those in Libya. Alas, I am being told that the human rights abuses in the UK are worse than that in Egypt or Iran. Sigh. Or that these mysterious and enigmatic humanitarian charities would solve the problem!
In conclusion, libertarianism has nothing to offer to those being massacred by a dictator in a foreign country. If anything, libertarianism provides a source of people like you, who’ll defend those tyrants (as you said above)!
ArthurEiss:I'm not calling out the neo-cons and lib interventionists for not launching more wars, I'm calling them out for putting forth false justifications. The implication I'm attempting to make is that their true motives have nothing to do with violations of human rights, and have everything to do with global diplomacy. America doesn't want Libya because Gaddafi is such a bad guy, we want Libya because it's the right country at the right time under the right circumstances to meet the political needs of the current administration and the overarching quest for world domination on the part of the united states. In other words, when I ask why not North Korea, Iran, etc, I'm not saying we should go there too, I'm saying that the fact that we don't shows that our motives are not as stated.
In other words, when I ask why not North Korea, Iran, etc, I'm not saying we should go there too, I'm saying that the fact that we don't shows that our motives are not as stated.
We’re clearly not going to have a serious conversation then, if you’re peddling the inane “US is an imperial force” conspiracy? I have ordered a Chomsky book on amazon to see how far these myths go …
I wrote an article here on why the US should intervene to remove Gadhafi.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/in_defense_of_obama_over_libya.html
Eugene:I don't see the sense in intervensionism. First of all I just don't want to endanger my life or well being for someone thousands of kilometers away. Second of all what looks genocide to you might seem like defensive action to many people. Human rights are just a western concept. Not everyone is libertarian, and most people in the world actually prefer oppression. So who are we to intervene in their society and their moral values?
So, let me get this right. You disagree with intervention entirely 100%. In other words, there is never any justification for intervention? That would explain the fatuousness of what you've just said.
Drew:Sorry, I 'd like to see if I still got it right. I should have been more clear. So I'll address two questions, just in case. I only have the answer for one. 1.Are you asking how can, let's say, a stateless USA with a free market help the people in Darfur? 2.Or how can the idea of free market help the people in Darfur if they implemented it?
How about dealing with reality outside our windows today and where libertarianism fits in with that ....
I already know what libertarianism has to offer those being slaughtered around the world today, besides a shoulder-shrug.
EvilSocialistFellow:...they are merely trying to free themselves. Why not help them? Would charity be enough to provide the services required to help them? Taxation to fund wars requires aggression against people in the home country but, (assuming all goes 'well'), the aggression used against the people abroad is reduced.
...they are merely trying to feed themselves. Why not help them? Would charity be enough to provide the services required to help them? Taxation to fund food requires aggression against people in the home country but, (assuming all goes 'well'), the hunger of the people abroad is reduced.
How do you know who needs what in this world (home or abroad) and whether or not the goals of one set of people (the ones apparently needing something) are more valuable than the goals of another set of people (the ones being coerced into helping them)? How is it possible and how is it any of your business to make judgments and comparisons of other people's subjective valuations (preferences)?
You're knee-deep in busybody interventionism.
z1235: EvilSocialistFellow:...they are merely trying to free themselves. Why not help them? Would charity be enough to provide the services required to help them? Taxation to fund wars requires aggression against people in the home country but, (assuming all goes 'well'), the aggression used against the people abroad is reduced. ...they are merely trying to feed themselves. Why not help them? Would charity be enough to provide the services required to help them? Taxation to fund food requires aggression against people in the home country but, (assuming all goes 'well'), the hunger of the people abroad is reduced. How do you know who needs what in this world (home or abroad) and whether or not the goals of one set of people (the ones apparently needing something) are more valuable than the goals of another set of people (the ones being coerced into helping them)? How is it possible and how is it any of your business to make judgments and comparisons of other people's subjective valuations (preferences)? You're knee-deep in busybody interventionism.
I am not entirely sure what you're arguing and I can't say I advocate humanitarian intervention, but you can shoot down that argument easily.
(1) government intervention in the provision of food is always more inefficient and wasteful than necessary at the expense of the poorest. That is fine. But you argue that if they ask for the removal of a dictator, then they'll be aksing for food. One is an economic scarce good, and the other isn't.
(2) we have various government bodies that send out food to foriegn countries. Despite what you might think, it exists. We also have voluntary charities in the UK - and elsewhere - that feed the poor home and abroad. But where is the "dictatorship removal team"?
Liam Anthony:But you argue that if they ask for the removal of a dictator, then they'll be aksing for food. One is an economic scarce good, and the other isn't.
What's the other one?
But where is the "dictatorship removal team"?
People donating to food charities value "hunger removal". Who values (demands) "dictatorship removal"?
Some economists believe that the higher the tax rate the lower the charity. It seems that there is a certain psychological effect of taxation that basically results in people believing they are already giving to charity so they don't need to give more. That is, if people are paying taxes that are then redistributed to those "in need" they are less likely to donate to a charity that does the same thing, even though the taxes aren't used nearly as efficiently.
Right now the US is all over the world "promoting democracy" and "taking down dictators". They are doing a terrible job but people in the US subconciously believe they are paying toward charities for "promoting democracy" and "taking down dictators" already so they aren't going to go donate to another charity that does the same thing. This is, theoretically, why you don't see "promoting democracy" and "taking down dictators" charities in the current world.
This is all hypothetical of course (though there is correlational data that suggests it is accurate) so we can't say for certain what would happen in a tax-free country.
The other major factor here is that interventionalism requires objective morality to be reasonable. You have to believe that there is an absolute "right" way for someone to lead their life in order for you to be justified in enforcing that belief on other people. For example, if people are committing suicide are you justified in stopping them (it's a voluntary act)? If people are voluntarily subjecting themselves to corporal punishment are you justified in stopping them (voluntary participation in a society)? If people are voluntarily living under the rule of a dictator are you justified in removing that dictator?
The one exception is if the people say they want out. If someone says they want out then all you have to do is help them get out. It's not your place to kill the dictator but it is your place to help them get out of the country. A country with a dictator and no people results in the dictator dying of starvation since he has no one to give him food.
In short, the easiest solution to foreign dictators is 100% open borders and charities that help people "escape" their country should they desire. What's the worst that can happen? Our libertarian country has all of the workers living in it while dictatorships have no people? Eventually the dictators will leave and our country can annex the now vacant land and put more people in it.
The underground railroad was a perfect example of a private organization that helped people escape a situation they did not want to be in. With todays technology something like the underground railroad would be far more efficient and capable of getting just about anyone that wanted out. In a free market the underground railroad could even charge for it's services. People who can't afford to pay up front can instead agree to work off their debt after they are free.
Libya, for example is no such place where the majority wish to overthrow Qaddafi.
How do you figure that?
Liam Anthony:But where is the "dictatorship removal team"?
Why don't you start one?
@ LibertyStudent - you are right, I do not support a free market unless I deem it to be both morally consistent and efficient at solving problems. But I also see the two as being intertwined, since after all it is completely moral to solve issues of child abuse, foreign dictators, mass starvation and so forth. My point is that the free market wouldn't be morally consistent (for I, the Ego) if it couldn't solve these issues as well as (or preferably better than) government. As a very basis, I demand it solves these issues as well as. Then it will be morally consistent (again, by my own subjective moral preferences).
You ask me about my interventionism from time to time and my response is simple; I am a classical liberal and like Adam Smith I support government intervention when I feel the pros outweigh the cons. But if I were to feel that the pros never outweighed the cons, or rarely outweighed them I would be more than happy to completely reject government. So you can say that I am a classical liberal who is open to the theme of voluntaryism. But I need to know more about political ideology; I need to find a philosophical basis on which to support my ideology and I need to learn more about economics as well. But in the mean time, I would be interested to know what the completely pure, free market solutions are to issues such as child abuse, overseas dictators, the issue of someone who is genuinely unable to work. I oppose the theme of charity because whilst it is plausible that once everybody is being taxed less and making more money in a free society they are more likely to donate their money to charity, it also seems that Libertarians are making a similar mistake to Marxists and anarcho-communists in suggesting that human nature will just sort of change, and kind of 'fit in' more conveniently with the ideological system they promote. I.e. because we live in a Libertarian society, everyone will suddenly become all lovely and nice and start donating more to charity. We have to assume ceteris paribus (with all other things staying the same when you change factor X).
Micah71381:Some economists believe that the higher the tax rate the lower the charity. It seems that there is a certain psychological effect of taxation that basically results in people believing they are already giving to charity so they don't need to give more. That is, if people are paying taxes that are then redistributed to those "in need" they are less likely to donate to a charity that does the same thing, even though the taxes aren't used nearly as efficiently. Right now the US is all over the world "promoting democracy" and "taking down dictators". They are doing a terrible job but people in the US subconciously believe they are paying toward charities for "promoting democracy" and "taking down dictators" already so they aren't going to go donate to another charity that does the same thing. This is, theoretically, why you don't see "promoting democracy" and "taking down dictators" charities in the current world. This is all hypothetical of course (though there is correlational data that suggests it is accurate) so we can't say for certain what would happen in a tax-free country. The other major factor here is that interventionalism requires objective morality to be reasonable. You have to believe that there is an absolute "right" way for someone to lead their life in order for you to be justified in enforcing that belief on other people. For example, if people are committing suicide are you justified in stopping them (it's a voluntary act)? If people are voluntarily subjecting themselves to corporal punishment are you justified in stopping them (voluntary participation in a society)? If people are voluntarily living under the rule of a dictator are you justified in removing that dictator? The one exception is if the people say they want out. If someone says they want out then all you have to do is help them get out. It's not your place to kill the dictator but it is your place to help them get out of the country. A country with a dictator and no people results in the dictator dying of starvation since he has no one to give him food. In short, the easiest solution to foreign dictators is 100% open borders and charities that help people "escape" their country should they desire. What's the worst that can happen? Our libertarian country has all of the workers living in it while dictatorships have no people? Eventually the dictators will leave and our country can annex the now vacant land and put more people in it. The underground railroad was a perfect example of a private organization that helped people escape a situation they did not want to be in. With todays technology something like the underground railroad would be far more efficient and capable of getting just about anyone that wanted out. In a free market the underground railroad could even charge for it's services. People who can't afford to pay up front can instead agree to work off their debt after they are free.
I would be happy to go along with the above.
z1235:...the hunger of the people abroad is reduced.
But don't you see, that was my whole point; that foreign intervention is different to providing them with food. I say this purely because lack of food does not constitute aggression against a person (unless you are a socialist and argue in terms of 'economic coercion') and hence is consistent with the non-aggression axiom. But an overseas tyrant does initiate aggression against his people. If you want to look at this in a more objective manner, we can say that a middle Eastern dictator initiates more aggression against his people, stoning people to death for adultery and forcing women to cover their faces in public, than a UK government which initiates aggression in a soft-core liberal sense, monopolising the media and telling people they really ought to be more concerned about the environment.
I know, I am interested in what people do with their sheep. (Private joke between me & Z).
EvilSocialistFellow:But don't you see, that was my whole point; that foreign intervention is different to providing them with food. I say this purely because lack of food does not constitute aggression against a person
If you observe that person A performs (what you perceive to be) aggression on person B, you would advocate coercing (at the point of a gun) person C into "helping" person B by aggressing person A. Does this sum your stance about right?
EvilSocialistFellow:You're knee-deep in busybody interventionism. I know, I am interested in what people do with their sheep. (Private joke between me & Z).
So, you think hanging gay people in Iran is equal to supressing free speech in the UK? Have you ever been to the Middle East and seen women “rights” there, and compared them to the UK? I don't understand how anybody can say this nonsense? Why do you think immigrants and political-refugees flock to the West? Because thinks are so much worse here than in Iran, for instance! Come on?!
That is exactly what I meant earlier when I said this sounds wonderful but has nothing to do with reality around us - here-and-now? I’m reminded of Chomsky. He has never spent a day in his life with a job outside of academia. So, obviiioously, businesses are exploiting everything and everyone. Durh! Where are the private humanitarian intervention groups that will remove tyrants? People keep on bleating about this on internet forums and haven't looked out of the window and realised that no such exists. I think it is important to pick the better of two options in life (even if it includes the state), whilst advocating for anarchy in the meantime.
You’re objectively and passively pro-fascism – at least not in your neighbourhood. Dictatorships and fascism is a product of the socialist mindset which is dependent on authoritarianism and aggression. We probably agree on this. But you seem to think that having a dictator next door is fine for you? If anything, 20th century history shows it is the opposite. Kuwaiti citizens would probably having a thing-or-two tell you! So, I believe in a strong foreign policy that is based on unilateral preemption (in the 21st century) to destroy those who wish impose a caliphate or kill US citizens. I don’t really buy into an argument of intervention on purely humanitarian grounds. I started this discussion to see if anyone had any reasonable suggestions on how to deal with problems – like those in Libya. Alas, I am being told that the human rights abuses in the UK are worse than that in Egypt or Iran. Sigh. Or that these mysterious and enigmatic humanitarian charities would solve the problem! In conclusion, libertarianism has nothing to offer to those being massacred by a dictator in a foreign country. If anything, libertarianism provides a source of people like you, who’ll defend those tyrants (as you said above)!
Maybe you should put a little less effort into speculating about what I think, what I know, who I remind you of, whether I am pro-fascist or not and whether I am supportive of tyrants or not, and engage my actual arguments instead.
Actually turning on your brain to comprehend what I wrote eg here: "Britain violates human rights to a greater extent than most overseas tyrants do, except it does so abroad and to foreigners, rather than at home." would be a good start.
z1235:If you observe that person A performs (what you perceive to be) aggression on person B, you would advocate coercing (at the point of a gun) person C into "helping" person B by aggressing person A. Does this sum your stance about right?
I'd say my stance is more that it is justified is the coercion used against C is less than the coercion that would have been used against person B. If that makes sense. Forcing people in the UK to pay taxes to fund a war does not amount to the rape, murder and torture that some people living under authoritarian regimes must put up with. Those are just my thoughts.
Must be hard to resist, but perfectly understandable. Humans are socio-biologically programmed against simply minding their own business. I'd propose that all of humanity's problems could be reduced to busybodies shoving "help" down other people's throats. I bet Hitler, too, thought he was helping humanity (civilization) by gassing "aggressors".
I hear the claim being used from time to time against Libertarians that they do not account for the fact that it is in people's 'nature' to monitor, intervene in and regulate interactions between other people. This is not necessarily a stance I agree with but a stance that makes me wonder *what if... they are right*.
Drew: Sorry, I 'd like to see if I still got it right. I should have been more clear. So I'll address two questions, just in case. I only have the answer for one. 1.Are you asking how can, let's say, a stateless USA with a free market help the people in Darfur?
Yeah it was this one (although I didn't mean to restrict my question to Darfur since this kind of thing is going on all over the world). I am happy with your reply but I am just a bit pessimistic about charity, I guess. Thanks, though, and it was a good answer.
EvilSocialistFellow:I'd say my stance is more that it is justified is [sic: "if"] the coercion used against C is less than the coercion that would have been used against person B. If that makes sense.
It doesn't. Remember, values are subjective. You cannot impose your subjective valuations onto person C. Only if person C himself subjectively valued action X (him "helping" B) more than action Y (him minding his own business, eating cake, or using the $ you would coerce out of him for his daughter's cancer surgery), would action X be performed by C -- not because you made that value comparison in his stead. Quit being a busybody and making decisions in other people's stead.
Forcing people in the UK to pay taxes to fund a war does not amount to the rape, murder and torture that some people living under authoritarian regimes must put up with. Those are just my thoughts.
And they are wrong, as explained above.
I agree. The above claim about humanity is, unfortunately, true. In case you missed my recent posts in another thread:
z1235:It doesn't. Remember, values are subjective. You cannot impose your subjective valuations onto person C. Only if person C himself subjectively valued action X (him "helping" B) more than action Y (him minding his own business, eating cake, or using the $ you would coerce out of him for his daughter's cancer surgery), would action X be performed by C -- not because you made that value comparison in his stead. Quit being a busybody and making decisions in other people's stead. And they are wrong, as explained above.
But as stated before, some values are subjective. They can also be objectively determined though; a country's economic output can be measured by its total Gross Domestic Product. The brutality of a fascist regime can be measured by the number of lives lost. The aggression required to dip your hands into the pocket of Person C is arguably less than the aggression that is being committed against that fellow being tortured every day of his life. But you have a point, and it sticks with me.
I agree. The above claim about humanity is, unfortunately, true. In case you missed my recent posts in another thread: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/23263/407670.aspx#407670 http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/23263/407732.aspx#407732 That doesn't make it logically consistent or right. Just unfortunate. My point is that it is hard to base an entire economic theorem based on a normative premise that is wrong. Now, I am the first to admit that I don't know much about Libertarian ethics, epistemology, metaphysics and so forth, but I do know that an economic theory is likely to be wrong if it is based on the pure assumption of voluntary exchanges and it does not account for other 'variables', so to speak. If the state were to be abolished today, would it be worth the violence if the state was re-established tommorow? I cannot prove the state would be re-established but it is a concern of mine. I just read your posts and it would appear that you share that concern. | Post Points: 35