So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 10 of 21
That's one place it breaks down, see, in our world, and thanks to our outrageously asinine and downright insane legislation revolving around patent/trademark/whatever....
Everything, literally EVERYTHING, physical, mental or social, even fucking IDEAS, already has an "owner", ergo anyone born now has ZERO method of advancement in regard to a system based around said ownership, one could almost be said that they're born in servitude to those that have, and as said property passes at a familial level, you still have THAT heirarchy lacking any other, a class/caste system with an unbreachable barrier since without any property, there's nothing to trade but labor, and no leverage to force a decent price on it - which is effectively the system we have now once you strip all the bullshit off it, so then, THIS armor piercing question.
What exactly constitutes ownership ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My basic view of libertarianism is that it is tightly focused on protecting and promoting the idea of ownership. As such, it was designed for, and benefits those who already own considerable property.
I was hoping to be dissuaded from that viewpoint, but nothing so far in this thread has changed my mind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What exactly constitutes ownership?
"Property is theft".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The obvious answer to this is that just as there is a vanishingly small number of people with a thirst for power under ANY system, nonetheless there WILL be a small minority who is willing an able to do so in a libertarian system. It's inevitable, and demonstrated by history over and over. Unless your system is able to respond effectively to that situation- which WILL arise- the tall hierarchy will be created.
Well, I can see that this is going in pretty much the same direction as it did in the old threads Frem cited.
1. You come up with some patently absurd scenario - "Since I'm the only clever person around, I'm gonna own all the Unobtainium in the world and have absolute power (evil laugh). How's your libertarians gonna stop this?"
2. You ignore any rational explaination as to why this is unlikely to occur in a Libertarian society by deciding that ALL the people there are driven to buy and sell EXCLUSIVELY based on the lowest cost, even though a quick look at the real world shows that not to be true. You also ignore that folks with a philosophy of independence would be LESS likely to all put themselves in a situation where one other person controls all of a resource vital to their life.
3. You take comments out of the whole context of what a Libertarian society would be, or use the radical extremes of libertarian thought (Ayn Rand? C'mon.) as the totality. For example:
"So, even if I were to set up a complete monopoly... as much as I am able, in any case... on water, roads, communication lines, etc... as long as I didn't charge "exhorbitant" prices you'd be OK with that?"
Since I've already pointed out how extremely unlikely it is that you'd be able to set up a complete monopoly, I made that comment for the sake of playing along with your argument. Of course, you ignore the extreme unlikelyhood of this happening, and assume that it certainly will.
4. you trot out the "Hierarchy is inevitable." slogan, and keep repeating it and ignoring any suggestions as to how it might be stopped or reduced.
So, overall, I'd say you're proposing specious arguments, ignoring any information that doesn't fit your interpretation of your scenario, and cherry-picking comments out of context to make your "point".
I suggest that you save us time and go back and read the same argument in the archives Frem provided. It's about a quarter down page 2 of this thread.
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32384&p=2
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh. And...
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not sure I've proposed a solution in this thread. Just maybe a lot of questions.
Your solution is pretty obvious in your dislikes; private property, individualism, and free markets.
So I'd have to guess your solution is communal ownership of property, submission of the individual to the will of the State for the good of the State(or whatever you want to call it), and a controlled economy.
Close?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:0
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ive been tut-tutted at a few times about not knowing anything about libertarianism. Yet despite the fact that the topic has come up is several threads recently- the McDonald's war, where has libertarianism been tried in real life, are you a libertarian or wanna be, and the carbon dioxide thread... nobody has been able to provide a cogent explanation about libertarianism, and what it means TO THEM.
So, would someone... anyone, or preferably several someones... who claim to be libertarian please provide an explanation, and be prepared to answer specific direct questions about how it might work?
Until that explanation is provided, will you please refrain from tsking about a topic that you not yet explained?
Pardon my french, Signy, but here's Libertarianism in TWO WORDS...
FUCK YOU
EDITED TO ADD:
Figured that wasn't sufficient.....
I'd like to elaborate.....
I own my own house and pay my taxes and the gumment wants in for any reason.....
FUCK YOU
I own my car and because your stupid state allowed cops the right to check every inch of your car front to back with no warrant for "click'it'n'tick'it"......
FUCK YOU
I would like to grow enough weed for myself and a few close elderly neighbors in a state that is probably decades from being as poor and desperate as Illinois was to allow Medical Marajuana.........
Well... I'll still provide it for them.....
And one day, I'll likely lose my house for being the trustworthy white boy down the street who knows how to make tomatoes and pot grow.
In the mean time, I'm glad that you were able to not have to go to the ghetto for weed and I could provide. Now that the government owns my house, not only do I apologize that you have to ask shady "niggers" in the ghetto for what after being covered in hair spray and MACE was weed, but you have to live with 3 feet of unkempt lawn across the street since I'm too busy being raped in prison to worry about mowing our lawns.
Bottom line Signy.......
Dems are even afraid of weed, although both sides allow it now (especially in corrupt IL) for money. Illinois decision will not alleviate illegal drug trade by a MICROCOSM because they will TAX IT SO HARRRRRDDDDDDDDDD.
That's the only reason the Pimps in IL allowed it.
Ahem... OBAMA.....
ILLINOIS IS EVIL$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Don't ask me....
you voted him in, assholes.....
Talk to his half-human hand
I don't fight that he's Kenyan. I HATE that you voted a numb-nuts junior Illinois crook (politician) in office.
Look at his head. He's not human. We only wish he was Kenyan.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
That's one place it breaks down, see, in our world, and thanks to our outrageously asinine and downright insane legislation revolving around patent/trademark/whatever....
Everything, literally EVERYTHING, physical, mental or social, even fucking IDEAS, already has an "owner", ergo anyone born now has ZERO method of advancement in regard to a system based around said ownership, one could almost be said that they're born in servitude to those that have, and as said property passes at a familial level, you still have THAT heirarchy lacking any other, a class/caste system with an unbreachable barrier since without any property, there's nothing to trade but labor, and no leverage to force a decent price on it - which is effectively the system we have now once you strip all the bullshit off it, so then, THIS armor piercing question.
What exactly constitutes ownership ?
-Frem
Damn, another bullseye, Frem.
I was thinking about pioneering the other day, American wilderness style. In 1776, if you were broke, you could get a wagon, move westward over the mountains, find yourself a piece of land and make a fresh start, libertarian or anarchist style. Cut down the trees, build yourself a cabin, plant and grow animals and crops to feed yourself and family. Wouldn't have been EASY, would have been RISKY, but you could get away from society and do it all with your bare hands, or just a little help from your very few neighbors. .
There's still plenty of vacant (or at least unused) land here in the USA, some of it desirable, but you can't just go there and take it. It belongs to the government, or some person or corporation, you have to BUY it first. Then whatever you might build is regulated by some government, state, county, local, so you have to meet construction standards, which means that what you might choose to live in and could build yourself probably wouldn't pass. You might even be prevented from doing the work yourself. All of which means spending money, that you may not have.
So without cashy money, or going into debt, there ain't no way. And, of course, once you're in debt, you're wholly enslaved to the system. Probably Theodore Kaszinsky had to have money so he could build his Unabomber cabin up there in Montana.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh. Again.
Rereading the old threads Frem cited, I see I've forgotten the importance of contracts in Libertopia. Glad to be reminded, because it gives me another fork to stick in the already well-done "I'm gonna be the monopolistic water baron. Bwahh Ha Ha!" scenario.
-------------------------------------------------------
I run Geezer's Geysers, a water supplier in Libertopia. I'm a good Propertarian, Minarchist, Libertarian (like 80% of the folks in Libertopia), believing in private ownership of property, the Non-aggression principle, and that government exists mostly to enforce contracts and protect the NAP.
I notice that Signym's Aquanopoly has moved in and started selling water at prices I know are below cost. I've seen Rango on PPV, so I have an idea what's coming.
Now selling a commodity like water in a Libertarian society would require contracts that outline prices, contract term, etc. I know that SignyM's Aquanopoly can not sustain such losses over the long term, which is confirmed by the fact they're selling on short term contracts. (If they were selling on long-term (multi-year) contracts, they'd end up bankrupt at the prices they offer.)
I go to my customers and say...
Quote:
I suppose you've seen Aquanopoly advertising their low water rates on short-term contracts. You should know that those rates are below their profit margin, and unsustainable in the long term. I'll be glad to open my books so you can see my costs, and challange Aquanopoly to do the same."
Now if Aquanopoly wants to sell water at a loss, that's their business, and I won't question their motivation (wink, wink). I can't sell water like that. What I will do is contract with you, for as long as I provide you with water, to do so at a profit of X% of my costs. Once again, my books will be open for audit so you can verify my costs. This way I'll make a fair profit, and you'll know that six months - or six years - down the line I won't arbitrarily jack up the price.
If Aquanopoly wants to offer the same type of contract, we'll compete on who's most efficient in the long run.
Oh, and here's a free Rango DVD.
I'd think that most folks, especially Libertarians, would take guaranteed long-term pricing over a system that might jack up the price at the end of every short-term contract (especially after seeing Rango). So Aquanopoly would either have to charge enough on short-term contracts to stay in business, or offer long-term contracts that would effectively preclude them from jacking up the price later. And Aquanopoly, even if they managed to get a monopoly, couldn't violate their contracts without the government stepping in to force them to comply.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aw, damn, Sig, I feel bad.
You asked nice, SHORT, valid hypothetical questions. And all you got out of Geezer was dismissal and an attack on your perceived starting bias. And from Six, anger and hostility.
I'd take a shot at ANSWERING your question, I WILL, even tho' I'm not a believer, but I'm busy today, got real world stuff I gotta do, and this is the first thread here I've looked at today. Maybe tomorrow or Monday.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are so MANY assumptions built in to your fantasy they're hard to enumerate:
1) you don't have a corner on the only water supply available - you literally don't hold the power of life and death over your customers - they are free to make use of your service, or not
2) someone else had provided the infrastructure and it's freely available for all competitors to use
3) the start-up costs of a new business aren't so exorbitantly high that competition is limited to the very few able to absorb the costs
4) there is no collusion between businesses to limit competition
5) a) there is a government that provides a currency and b) that enforces your property ownership (though how any kind of enforcement can be done without coercion is uncertain)
6) there is a a) customer base capable of buying your product and b) a workforce base educated enough and capable enough of working for you (and remember a) the conundrum of profit - every turn of the cycle where you skim off the workers' wages to make a profit means they can buy that much less from you, and b) if you had to pay for the raising and education of your workforce instead of treating it like a socially provided 'freebie' you can make use of, your costs would be astronomical)
and most important
7) the idea that water - which nature provides for free - can be owned.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME