Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[youdontknowme]

Cythraul, my problem with libertarian ideas is that it does not protect people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to compete in the market as well as others. Examples would be ethnic groups that were traditionally discriminated against, people who start with less money, people with mental illnesses among others. This is like a race where everyone is able to run, but some people get a head start. How would libertarianism help these people? I find it hard to believe that some private enterprise would help them. If you look back to a time before social welfare systems, there was extreme poverty and private enterprise for the most part did not help those afflicted with it.

well you like slam, the affirmative action subgenre of death metal

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

mildly clever

 

[Einherjar86]

If this question even needs to be asked then I doubt Libertarians and I will ever agree

Lots of small business owners don't hold to this creed though; many of them feel a strong connection with their community and are more than willing to contribute to the welfare of its members. In my hometown the local Rotary club always held fundraisers and charity events to help support local poor families. I know you sympathize with the small business owners, Nick, because you started that donation thread.

 

[Cythraul]

Cythraul, my problem with libertarian ideas is that it does not protect people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to compete in the market as well as others. Examples would be ethnic groups that were traditionally discriminated against, people who start with less money, people with mental illnesses among others. This is like a race where everyone is able to run, but some people get a head start. How would libertarianism help these people?

Am I supposed to be moved by this? It should be obvious already that I think obtaining property through aggression to support some social welfare program is morally wrong. I'm all for private charity though.

I find it hard to believe that some private enterprise would help them.

Why do you find that hard to believe? There are already tons of charity organizations around. Consider also that government intervention generally crowds out private investment and private charity. Unfortunately though I can't give you any guarantees that every disadvantaged person is going to be taken care of from cradle to grave.

If you look back to a time before social welfare systems, there was extreme poverty and private enterprise for the most part did not help those afflicted with it.

I should point out that capitalism as such has lifted millions out of abject poverty and indeed tends to do so when production and investment is encouraged, whereas welfare programs have a spotty history at best. These considerations are not decisive but it's something to think about.

So, in order to uphold generally basic "laws" or rules like, for instance, "no one should murder people", communities have to buy and hire police companies to enforce the community rules and regulations. Why is this desirable? Just seems unnecessary. This is one issue where I think our current government doesn't really do that much in the way of being wrong. When there's crime, it's usually taken care of rather quickly and simply, unlike in the anarchic system.

There's nothing in the nature of this case which indicates that privatized protection would be less efficient, contrary to what you seem to suggest in your last sentence. The main differences here are that the funding for protection/law enforcement is not obtained in a coercive manner and that individuals can tailor their level of protection according to whatever amount they wish to spend. Sounds pretty cool to me.

How do you not understand that the way and process by which things are privatized is a big deal and a big part of how your entire system works, mainly because the privatization aspect is arguably the biggest difference between your version of anarcho-capitalism and modern representative democratic-republics like the US? It's not really that far-fetched of me to ask you to defend what seems to be the biggest point of political and philosophical contention here.

How is this the biggest point of contention? Your question is important but unimportant relative to the big questions surrounding market anarchism. It seems to me that you should instead be asking the question 'Would this system be viable at all once it is in place?' I don't see how the particular question you're asking me is not a problem for just about any radical alteration to society that hasn't been done before. Thus, I don't see why it should be a particularly worrying problem for my view in particular. Tell me, why do you think it's such an urgent problem?

 

[King Richard]

lol libs

 

[cookiecutter]

Why do you find that hard to believe? There are already tons of charity organizations around. Consider also that government intervention generally crowds out private investment and private charity. Unfortunately though I can't give you any guarantees that every disadvantaged person is going to be taken care of from cradle to grave.

Interesting point about government services crowding out private ones. I think there are areas though (health care for instance) where that is desirable. And I know you meant in pejoratively but I think that assisting every disadvantaged person is a goal we should strive for.

I should point out that capitalism as such has lifted millions out of abject poverty and indeed tends to do so when production and investment is encouraged, whereas welfare programs have a spotty history at best. These considerations are not decisive but it's something to think about.

I am no so far gone on the left to believe that capitalism is the enemy. Rather I think that its rough points should be smoothed out by a government that is able to do what is necessary but unprofitable. I don't think it has to be one or the other and I think they can be of mutual benefit.

Lots of small business owners don't hold to this creed though; many of them feel a strong connection with their community and are more than willing to contribute to the welfare of its members. In my hometown the local Rotary club always held fundraisers and charity events to help support local poor families. I know you sympathize with the small business owners, Nick, because you started that donation thread.

I do sympathize and I don't mean to belittle private charity. I just don't believe it is enough to be relied on completely. If you look at the things like rich-poor gap or the Human Development Index, states with larger welfare systems do better than those without.

 

[Dak]

I do sympathize and I don't mean to belittle private charity. I just don't believe it is enough to be relied on completely. If you look at the things like rich-poor gap or the Human Development Index, states with larger welfare systems do better than those without.

The main problem that socialists have is completely ignoring the foundational fact of sustainability which is internal production. Socialism is completely unsustainable on a broad scope because it doesn't produce like it consumes, and human nature leads to the collapse of whatever production that was there when the producers see people mooching off their labor.

When Gov't stops taking so much from people, it creates individual surpluses which feed more growth, which feeds more surplus, which leads to more private charitable work. I am not opposed to local government organized charities and public works, but I am completely against federal involvement. The money has to go through to many hands up and back down. The oversight is going to be shitty, and too much just winds up in the hands of a million middle men, and as far as construction, instead of the money going back into the local workers pockets, it usually goes to a big company who can undercut everyone.

Federal involvement in anything is almost always bad.

 

[genocide roach]

question for you guys. anyone seen reporting on iran jamming the BBC signal? all i can find is the AP article and a pretty cool article from a moldovan site hehehe
~gR~

 

[Death Aflame]

Pretty sure I got that dude Death Aflame to agree that anarchism is very much a "pipe dream" before and he was super into it so... yeah

All I recall agreeing with is that it is unlikely to displace the current hegemonic order in the West any time soon. It is not a pipe dream (as in a fantasy) though since there are numerous historical examples of it being put into actual practice (all of which is retreading older material from the other thread). Moreover, just because it is unlikely to become the overarching norm, does not mean that the ideals it promotes are not worth striving for. You being a political 'moderate' would probably agree with at least some charitable causes that many anarchists dedicate their time to such as Food not Bombs. Though I could be wrong about that last bit.

Anyways, my advice to Cyth is to just not discuss Anarchist/Libertarian philosophy with V5 since he refuses to acknowledge even the basics (i.e. the political philosophical definition of anarchy as opposed to the colloquial use of the term).

 

[Death Aflame]

Ease up. Libertarianism as a philosophical ideal means the maximizing of individual liberty; this, by necessity, requires a certain limitation (ideally, the complete neglect) of the influence of all ethics, morals and values on an individual's decision-making process. Libertarians do what is ultimately to their own advantage; this requires a suspension of moral values, as they hinder the ability of the individual to act in his or her best interest.

Your conclusion is faulty since your first premise is not true in all cases. For example, Libertarianism began as a socialist political philosophy which by default disallows the claim of nihilism/lack of ethics to be applied.

What you describe seems to be closer to the current use of the term Libertarianism in the popular political landscape of the US (i.e. the Libertarian Party) or its more 'radical' sister philosophy anarcho-capitalism. I too have concerns about such philosophies that promote individualism above all else, though I don't know how accurate your claim of a "suspension of all moral values" would come about even under conditions tending more and more toward unfettered capitalism.

 

[Base Delta Zero]

There is a slight correlation between charitable giving, individual and corporate, and free markets. During the 80's, charitable giving rose from ~$77.5 billion in 1980 to ~$121 billion in 1989. Charitable giving grew at a much faster rate than in the previous 25 years.

Also, concerning health care, before medicare/medicaid, high income individuals had an average of 5.1 doctor visits/year while low income individuals had an average of 4.3 annual doctors visits. That was hardly a system that was 'broken'. Medicare/medicaid simply undermined the existing reduced cost/pro bono services that doctors had once provided the poor. It could be argued that the hyper-stimulation of demand created by medicare/medicaid in compensating doctors for services that were once provided for a reduced charge, or free of charge, was one of the factors that undermined the natural market mechanisms that would've lowered the cost of health care.

 

[youdontknowme]

mildly clever

its a black/wigger joke.

 

[Mort Divine]

its a black/wigger joke.

i think he got it

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

There's nothing in the nature of this case which indicates that privatized protection would be less efficient, contrary to what you seem to suggest in your last sentence. The main differences here are that the funding for protection/law enforcement is not obtained in a coercive manner and that individuals can tailor their level of protection according to whatever amount they wish to spend. Sounds pretty cool to me.

It would be much less efficient. Essentially there would be mercenary-esque companies who would have to be bought out to serve basic functions we already have in the public defense system, not to mention the fact that they would be then under no obligation to even do the job they were hired for, since it's a pay-to-play game and no one can stop them from this abuse, and bribery would likely be the necessary standard, which seems contemptuous and full of terrible corruption, worse than what we currently have (which isn't bad imo, and I live in a very crime-ridden city). On that topic, how is what we have now essentially coercive? That seems like a strange claim, unless you are one of "those people" who thinks taxation is coercive (which you probably are). I don't find that people paying a bit for a consistent civil defense force is very coercive, especially compared to your alternative which glorifies corruption. Also, don't you think it would be extraordinally inaccurate to judge by numbers and statistics alone how much "protection" a commonwealth under this system would even need anyway? What happens when competing interests vie for the usage of the same company for things like rallies and demonstrations? Do the rich just win out because they're rich? Your system introduces far, far more problems than it solves.

How is this the biggest point of contention? Your question is important but unimportant relative to the big questions surrounding market anarchism. It seems to me that you should instead be asking the question 'Would this system be viable at all once it is in place?' I don't see how the particular question you're asking me is not a problem for just about any radical alteration to society that hasn't been done before. Thus, I don't see why it should be a particularly worrying problem for my view in particular. Tell me, why do you think it's such an urgent problem?

You can argue with me about "what I may mean" for however long you want, but your lack of knowledge about how something like this could work is astounding given how much thought and time you apparently have vested in this ideology. The privatization part is a big point of contention because it is the biggest difference between the way the government in the US works and the way it would work under your ideal system, and it is what you pointed out as the main way to differentiate, I believe.

 

[The Ozzman]

You are being forced to pay for something you don't necessarily agree with or want through taxation, so how is that NOT coercive?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Everyone agrees with their safety and wants it, sorry.

 

[The Ozzman]

Unless the degree of safety is markedly deficient. Though, in that case, another department would most likely take over the duties of that municipality.

Just because everyone agrees with the taxation doesn't automatically negate the degree of coercion present, Andy. Don't be a dumbass

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I was just talking to my friend who is a poli sci major and he mentioned that there is actually a social contract which is implicit by you living in a place, that essentially states that you understand that the government can do whatever they want with the taxes, and you agree because you live there. You can move somewhere where they don't do that if you want (whereas in an anarchical commonwealth, you likely can't just go and move anywhere you want).

 

[The Ozzman]

Yes because moving is a viable option for some people

I'd like to add that this is a pretty good discussion so far.

 

[Base Delta Zero]

I was just talking to my friend who is a poli sci major and he mentioned that there is actually a social contract which is implicit by you living in a place, that essentially states that you understand that the government can do whatever they want with the taxes, and you agree because you live there. You can move somewhere where they don't do that if you want (whereas in an anarchical commonwealth, you likely can't just go and move anywhere you want).

Is this social contract between the citizen and the state government or federal government? Or both?