Libertarianism

[Plow]

Quick philosophy lesson kids, you've probably heard this one. Say you're standing next to a train track shortly before a fork junction. On one side, 5 people lay tied up, and on the other side there's this fat guy. There's a switch in front of you that you can pull to flip the fork, sending the train to kill the fat guy while saving the other 5. What do you do?

Well there was this guy called Kant who didn't precisely have an opinion on this question (it was devised later by dumber philosophers who write useless papers for a living, in between giving puerile lectures at diploma mills) but he did have this to say about it: every action you take should be in accordance with some universal law which is applicable in all situations. A set of such universal moral laws is called a deontology because it proscribes a set of duties. So if your deontology says something like, thou shalt not murder, then the particulars of the situation, i.e. the very contrived way in which the consequences are set up, don't really matter. You'd be killing a guy by pulling the lever, so you can't contradict yourself by doing so. There are further complications in this example but we aren't philosophers playing fucked up language games, so let's keep it simple.

So who the fuck cares. Well we might, because deontologists like Kant are distinguished from consequentialists (utilitarians) by their view that it is motives and not consequences that define morality. A utilitarian might say, pull the lever, because five lives are more valuable than a single (fat) one. Kant says, if we allow that murder is permissable, we'd have a difficult time universalizing that maxim without logically contradicting ourselves. If, say, we can't obtain a self evident universal maxim that justifies pulling the lever, then we have to conclude that murder is not permissable maybe, and not pull the lever. What's important is that you act within a framework of universal law.

Alright so then there's libertarians. Libertarians have a strong view of rights, naturally, because they're pretty preoccupied with liberty (hint: it's in the name). That gives us a pretty good idea about the libertarian deontology. The liberties and rights of individuals are inviolable, and liberty is the primary universal good, says the libertarian. This, they say, we take to be our self evident universal maxim. And we take that to it's logical end to get our ideal model of the state, namely minimal central authorities that only exist to protect private liberties, property, and national sovereignty, and so on.

So you pose a thought experiment to a libertarian, that there's a minority demographic which seems to be systematically underperforming in economic and social terms. You offer the following dilemma. Option one is that you can institute various policy measures, special funding for various social programs and the like, aimed specifically to improve the econometrics of that demographic. Option two is do nothing.

This is kind of like the train fork story. There are two consequences; the systemic disadvantages faced by the demographic in question, and the increased taxation, short term loss of utility, and inconvenience faced by the rest of society for accommodating the implementation of social programs and etc. In consequentialist terms, the former is the lesser of two evils, just like 1 life is less valuable than 5. But the first option is also a possible impingement upon individual liberties, so Libertarians get Kunty and say no, this is not the role of the state, and it isn't fair/moral to do, option two please.

So why do libertarians think personal freedom is so important? Well they do, for a bunch of reasons. Read John Locke or Ayn Rand if you want to see why. The point is that they do and that's where they get their notions of fairness in society. But wait a second, what about all this free markets shit?

Well there are really two ways to argue for libertarianism. The one we've been talking about is the argument from morality, or deontological libertarianism. That is, it's the argument that Libertarianism is a good policy because it is a just policy. Free market arguments for Libertarianism try to demonstrate that it is practical economic policy. The difference is is that the latter is a consequentialist view; it is concerned with the practical consequences of implementing a libertarian state.

Q: Hey Cads, what the fuck. First Libertarians are fuzzy metaphysicians arguing from some abstract as fuck moral philosophy, now they're economists?

Well yes, they're often both, but you'll notice the quote above is basically a normative statement (a statement about the way things should be), or a statement about fairness. The free markets shit can be decoupled from the fairness part, although you'll often find libertarians switching between the two aspects of their ideology in a fast and loose manner.

So say now that we're consequentialist libertarians who talk a lot about economics and free markets and shit. Then given the dilemma with the minority demographic blah blah, we'd again choose option two but not out of some allegiance to liberty as an abstract universal greatest good, but because we think that instituting social programs can only result in a net loss in welfare for everybody. So it's not like the train dilemma at all, it's as if we could do nothing and let five people die, or pull the lever and kill twenty more. Why do they think this? Bunch of reasons, read John Locke or Ayn Rand or Friedrich Hayek I guess. This free market pandering sort of economics is usually based at least in part on the theoretical framework of what is called Austrian economics, which is radically different from mainstream Keynesian economics. Wikipedia that shit.

Q: First we based libertarianism on metaphysical moral grounds and saw that it was maybe a little too silly to run a country with, and then we talked about an economic reasoning which got rid of the silly part. It seems like Libertarians say that their ideas are fair except when they're not fair in which case it's the magic of economics that makes it practical which makes it fair. Isn't the economics side of the argument just contrived to make the moral side of it less stupid?

Usually.

Q: One more question faggot. If the demographic minority in your example are some ethnic minority like blacks or hispanics, what do the libertarians have to say about that?

A bunch of things. At any rate they believe that any policy that amounts to affirmative action is unjust and shouldn't be implemented, and anything that causes undue taxation is definitely bad anyway. Some believe that the whole problem of racial discrimination is something that will sort itself out if the the government would ever stop meddling, or at least that it's something that the government can't make any better. Others believe that, given the same rights and freedoms, any two groups have the same potential for prosperity in a free market, so that any difference in incomes is concluded to be a result of a difference in aptitude among those two groups. That is, to defend free markets as equitable, it might be necessary to argue for racism (or racialism or race realism or whatever the fuck ever).

Q: That's pretty fucking convenient for anyone arguing against libertarianism. Just play the race card and you're done! Isn't that kind of lame?

It can be pretty lame, but racism is consistent with libertarianism, even if it isn't a mainstream view. It can't be the case that free markets secure the best social and economic outcomes for the population if some are systemically discriminated against for no economic reason. For the vast majority of libertarians who aren't (overtly) racist, they have to address the problem of differences in income across different ethnicities and demographics, which can't be explained economically if there is no heritable difference in aptitude between say, blacks and whites. If you're a racist, then you have a tidy explanation for that income disparity and hence, you don't have a problem here.

That's all dumbasses, hope it was educational. Know what you're arguing for or against.

BETTER NATE THAN LEVER

[ronin sparthos]

The middle class and the poor needs to realize that the government is ripping them off by devaluing the currency and bailing out wall.st. As long as there is a powerful government that can do this there will always be politicians that wants to cash in on it. The solution is to reduce the power of the government so that its powers can not be bought.

Dissolve the government and a new(?) problem arises to take its place: wealthy monopolies that vaporize or absorb anything that could be considered competition.

Once the opposition has been thoroughly crushed financially these large mega-corporations will control the populace by being the only source for primary services such as healthcare, education or employment, form armies to protect themselves using the disadvantaged who see opportunity in being guns for hire and effectively be your new overlords. Liberty, Freedom and whatever else you cherish will be at the whims of these new leaders who may simply see such constructs as hindrances to profit and continued propagation.

[archibaldcrane]

The American Institute for Economic Research says inflation, using their “everyday price index,” actually is 8%. People on fixed incomes, they’re really hurting. The middle class is really hurting because their inflation rate is very much higher than the government tries to tell them and that’s why they lose trust in government.

8% over 10 years devalues 100 dollars to 43 dollars equivalent.

Yeah, if you remove things with more fixed prices from the CPI formula and only include things that routinely "inflate", (which is exactly what EPI does), then yep, you'll end up with a rate that is higher than the reality of people's lives.

[test123]

Dissolve the government and a new(?) problem arises to take its place: wealthy monopolies that vaporize or absorb anything that could be considered competition.

Once the opposition has been thoroughly crushed financially these large mega-corporations will control the populace by being the only source for primary services such as healthcare, education or employment, form armies to protect themselves using the disadvantaged who see opportunity in being guns for hire and effectively be your new overlords. Liberty, Freedom and whatever else you cherish will be at the whims of these new leaders who may simply see such constructs as hindrances to profit and continued propagation.

-tin-foiled-hat- blablablabla

[Seraph]

-tin-foiled-hat- blablablabla

Clearly these mighty men will save me from those in power who are currently screwing me over and not just screw me over themselves once they attain power!

Also, I think I just described the potential plot to a porno movie.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Rule 34. Everything's a porno.

[Demosthenes11]

just boycott the mega businesses, duh

[hey]

just boycott the mega businesses, duh

And when there are no small businesses, just do it yourself. So what if you have to spend all of your time just trying to survive?

[ronin sparthos]

-tin-foiled-hat- blablablabla

I'll take your tin-foiled hat response as a concession of no better response.

What's stopping these dominant corporations from assuming control after libertarians unchain them under the banner of liberty and free markets? Do you believe they'll self-regulate and allow for natural forces of competition to take root when the opportunity to annihilate or assimilate start-ups would be readily available? Do you believe that the individual will be able to resist these companies given the control we see from some companies today in their respective industries?

With a pruned government what do you believe keeps business from assuming the throne of pseudo-governmental force?

[RKenshin]

The middle class and the poor needs to realize that the government is ripping them off by devaluing the currency and bailing out wall.st. As long as there is a powerful government that can do this there will always be politicians that wants to cash in on it. The solution is to reduce the power of the government so that its powers can not be bought.

And why do you think that corporations would be any different? Why are they immune from the same abuse of power, corruption, and greed in your libertarian fantasy world?

And what would protect the consumer (and the 'freedom' of this free market) from these such actions, as well as monopolies/trusts/price-fixing/collusion/etc? You can't honestly believe that it all just would disappear?

[hey]

And what would protect the consumer (and the 'freedom' of this free market) from these such actions, as well as monopolies/trusts/price-fixing/collusion/etc? You can't honestly believe that it all just would disappear?

People would just not buy anything from companies who did that, so they'd die out.

duh.

Oh, what's that? Every single one of us would continue giving our money to such companies, because as much as we hate it, it really is better than just doing without their product/service (since there are no competitors that don't do exactly the same bullshit)?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

And why do you think that corporations would be any different? Why are they immune from the same abuse of power, corruption, and greed in your libertarian fantasy world?

And what would protect the consumer (and the 'freedom' of this free market) from these such actions, as well as monopolies/trusts/price-fixing/collusion/etc? You can't honestly believe that it all just would disappear?

Corporations have no power over you, govt. does. That's what matters, not the things you listed.

And, Standard Oil controlled 98% of the oil market before it was initially sued. By the end of the suit it controlled 78%. Why do you believe it's the exception?

Also, let's assume the free market doesn't prevent your fears in the your 2nd paragraph. The govt. doesn't prevent it either, so why should we pay for failed prevention when we can have failed prevention for free?

[Cadsuane]

Corporations have no power over you, govt. does. That's what matters, not the things you listed.

And, Standard Oil controlled 98% of the oil market before it was initially sued. By the end of the suit it controlled 78%. Why do you believe it's the exception?

Also, let's assume the free market doesn't prevent your fears in the your 2nd paragraph. The govt. doesn't prevent it either, so why should we pay for failed prevention when we can have failed prevention for free?

If you know the assertions I've bolded are going to be contentious, why do you assert them casually as if you're remarking on the weather? Come to think of it I've never seen you make a post more than 100 words long because of this infuriating style of only ever ejaculating short grunts as posts.

If I were a mod of this section I'd ban you on trolling grounds for having a pathological inability to discuss your own ideas.

[RKenshin]

Corporations have no power over you, govt. does. That's what matters, not the things you listed.

A single entity controlling every single product choice you have available to you (price and quality)... is powerless?

If one super-company/trust formed controlling 99.9% of all food supplies in the market, you truly believe that their decisions, pricing, and quality of goods produced would have 0 power over anyone? Sure, you're not forced to buy food, but how many people really have a practical choice?

And even so, who's to prevent the trust from buying out alternatives/competition/substitutes?

Also, let's assume the free market doesn't prevent your fears in the your 2nd paragraph. The govt. doesn't prevent it either, so why should we pay for failed prevention when we can have failed prevention for free?

I'm pretty sure the government enforces laws and regulations that are exactly fighting against what I described in the first paragraph.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But your implication that them failing to do it perfectly means that it shouldn't be done at all is absolutely ridiculous.

'If the police force can't prevent all murders, then the police shouldn't get involved in preventing murder at all. Not only will that save money, but it's more likely murder will never happen!' Same logic.

[Kuya]

If you know the assertions I've bolded are going to be contentious, why do you assert them casually as if you're remarking on the weather? Come to think of it I've never seen you make a post more than 100 words long because of this infuriating style of only ever ejaculating short grunts as posts.

If I were a mod of this section I'd ban you on trolling grounds for having a pathological inability to discuss your own ideas.

I find the idea of you being a mod for this section highly appealing.

[guartz]

Libertarianism is so old school, new shit is anarcho-capitalism.


no initiation of force as a moral axiom.

logical conclusions on well established economic principles.

edgy as fuck

enough members to fit into a good sized Holiday Express board room.

wikipedia article


Join today!

[Demosthenes11]

there's literally dozens of us!

dozens!

[archibaldcrane]

edgy as fuck

enough members to fit into a good sized Holiday Express board room.

wikipedia article


Join today!

quite possibly my favorite guartz post

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

A single entity controlling every single product choice you have available to you (price and quality)... is powerless?

If one super-company/trust formed controlling 99.9% of all food supplies in the market, you truly believe that their decisions, pricing, and quality of goods produced would have 0 power over anyone? Sure, you're not forced to buy food, but how many people really have a practical choice?

And even so, who's to prevent the trust from buying out alternatives/competition/substitutes?

I'm pretty sure the government enforces laws and regulations that are exactly fighting against what I described in the first paragraph.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But your implication that them failing to do it perfectly means that it shouldn't be done at all is absolutely ridiculous.

'If the police force can't prevent all murders, then the police shouldn't get involved in preventing murder at all. Not only will that save money, but it's more likely murder will never happen!' Same logic.

Why didn't we have super-companies before these things became illegal? Your supposing something will happen that hasn't. Even standard oil became smaller and smaller.

Murder is on a totally different level with totally different consequences.

Also, based on the GM Bailout, the govt. can be no less corrupt. The govt. literally broke the law (I don't mean in a criminal sense) in multiple ways in that bailout. But, it colluded with a union so who cares!

Society didn't crumble before colluding, etc became illegal, so I don't see how you can argue that it will.

Cadsuane: Taking your first post as an example, it would probably take me twice as long to type the same thoughts if I had them as you did. It's simply easier for me to respond to a post than to type one up.

[Byrthnoth]

Why didn't we have super-companies before these things became illegal? Your supposing something will happen that hasn't.

Ever heard of the internet, Swampy? How about Telephones? Automobiles? Airplanes? How about the kind of international infrastructure that allows companies like Walmart to operate? You can't just overlook the impact of technology and increasingly reliable infrastructure/distribution systems when you're waving your hands and proclaiming super-companies won't arise.

Not to mention that the process has been going on for some time now:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilever
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestle
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart

These goods and services used to be provided by thousands of smaller stores, and now they're provided by single providers that often have a vertical (if not also horizontal) monopoly on their products. How can you look at the evolution of huge international conglomerates over the last hundred years and come away with any kind of hope that it wouldn't continue and they'd eat each other to become these super-companies if we removed regulations? It would just turn into a game of Highlander.