So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Hygro]

It certainly is, if flies are elephants.

When I say "seperation of politics and economics", I do not say that they are disconnected, which clearly isn't the case, but that politics just can't be understood in terms of pure economics and vice versa. Politics is rife of things that do not make any economic sense at all.



Thank you so much for proving my point. If you didn't, then you may have a fetish for pleonasms.

I guess the question is did you mean economics the discipline or economics, the sphere of activity that is our economy? If the former, then it's not a big claim at all, in fact one I make all the time. But if it's the latter, which I'm guessing it isn't reading the your quote, it's like *head explodes*

 

[Agent327]

The spaghetti monster makes morality. But the spaghetti monster is represented by worldly actors. I'm not sure what your point is here.

You seem to confuse morality with the dispersion of lawful justice. Those aren't the same thing. (Spaghetti monster? Is that like cookie monster?)

 

[Tahuti]

You seem to confuse morality with the dispersion of lawful justice. Those aren't the same thing. (Spaghetti monster? Is that like cookie monster?)

Indeed they aren't. I'm trying to make an analogy: Morality doesn't collapse when there is no deity like some religious people claim. Likewise, the absence of states do not necessarily mean the absence of laws. For instance, Dutch colonial territories in what is now the USA had laws and did enforce them, despite the territories formally didn't belong to the Dutch Republic. American pioneers who settled the Western parts of what is now the USA didn't really belong to states either, but they did had laws. Likewise, Somalia (which isn't strictly a stateless society) has the Xeer law-system which are made and enforced independently of government.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

It won't work. It never really works. When the problem is caused by a few, and the many are effected, you never get all of the many to agree on a solution.

A program of doing things this way is exactly the same in practice as a program of saying that anyone has a perfect right to harm anyone that they have the ability to harm.

But a government is a solution right? So if many individuals can agree an a common standpoint (as in: a law) why wouldn't they be able to agree on a common lawsuit?

EDIT: does that make you an Ourobouros?

 

[Agent327]

Indeed they aren't. I'm trying to make an analogy: Morality doesn't collapse when there is no deity like some religious people claim. Likewise, the absence of states do not necessarily mean the absence of laws. For instance, Dutch colonial territories in what is now the USA had laws and did enforce them, despite the territories formally didn't belong to the Dutch Republic. American pioneers who settled the Western parts of what is now the USA didn't really belong to states either, but they did had laws. Likewise, Somalia (which isn't strictly a stateless society) has the Xeer law-system which are made and enforced independently of government.

Interesting that you should mention Somalia, which is rather known for the lack of law enforcement (piracy, terrorism,warlordism). Which goes to my point: laws without effective law enforcement are rather pointless. The USSR had the most advanced law code in the world; unfortunately, it's own government largely ignored it.

I assume with "Dutch colonial territories" you are referring to the tiny settlement of New Amsterdam. You claim the settlers there made their own laws; in practice the governor was the law. The entire Dutch East India Co functioned as a state within the state - which, in its case, wasn't too surprising as the Republic was merely a collective of provinces, and for most of the colonial period, didn't have the bureaucracy to govern extensive overseas territories. You might consider an example such as the EIC as one where the state doesn't provide the law. That would be correct. However, since an organization such as the EIC didn't recognize a separation of powers (similar to the USSR, I might add), that doesn't result in rule of law, but in the opposite: complete partiality. Rule of law is essential to justice.

One might possibly make the same argument about the American Frontier, but since that is outside my field of expertise I won't even attempt.

 

[Cutlass]

But a government is a solution right? So if many individuals can agree an a common standpoint (as in: a law) why wouldn't they be able to agree on a common lawsuit?

Government can be a solution. It's really the only possible solution. If government does not act, then there is no other solution that stands a snowballs chance in hell.

We can watch that failure playing out right before our eyes:

Big Brands Face Scrutiny Over Factory Safety After Bangladesh Collapse

As Bangladesh reels from the deaths of hundreds of garment workers in a building collapse, global retailers' refusal to pay for strict, nationwide factory inspections is again focusing scrutiny to an industry that has profited from a country notorious for its hazardous workplaces and subsistence wages.

After a fire killed 112 garment workers at Tazreen Fashions in November, clothing brands and retailers rejected a union-sponsored proposal to improve safety throughout Bangladesh's $20 billion garment industry. Instead, companies expanded a patchwork system of private audits and training. Labor groups insist that the moves improve little, with official inspections lax and factory owners enjoying close ties to the government.

In the five months since, there have been 41 "fire incidents" in Bangladesh factories—ranging from a fatal conflagration to smaller fires that caused employees to panic, according to a labor organization affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Combined, those incidents killed nine workers and injured more than 660.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100679902

If it was at all possible for your idea to work, we would not be watching it fail right now.

EDIT: does that make you an Ourobouros?

I haven't got the smallest clue of what you think you mean by that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Cutlass, do you imagine yourself as apart from the uncivilized masses that cannot function without the state?

 

[ParkCungHee]

If it was at all possible for your idea to work, we would not be watching it fail right now.

I thought Muslims were "acceptable casualties" in your estimation? Given your callous disregard for human life when it is convenient for you, do these dead bodies amount to anything more than ammunition to you?

If that's the case, why should we feel any pity for this unworthy lot?

 

[Cutlass]

Cutlass, do you imagine yourself as apart from the uncivilized masses that cannot function without the state?

Doesn't make any difference what I am. It only take 5-10% to make it unworkable for everyone.

 

[Cutlass]

I thought Muslims were "acceptable casualties" in your estimation?

And just how much of a brain tumor do you have to have gotten that idea?

 

[ParkCungHee]

And just how much of a brain tumor do you have to have gotten that idea?

Our last conversation, I pointed out that supporting the United States government supports murdering over 100,000 Iraqi children deliberately, that this was the cost of 'reasonable politics'. Given that, why should anyone care about an extra 100?

Doesn't make any difference what I am. It only take 5-10% to make it unworkable for everyone.

You are too modest! But fine, since it does not matter who you are, I shall assume you are part of the unintelligable lot that makes up most the cattle of humanity, who gave you these idea? By what authority did he act, and by what authority did he give you the duty of speaking for him? Why should you, being part of that body unable to organize it's own affairs, allow you to organize ours? Or even your own?

 

[Cutlass]

Our last conversation, I pointed out that supporting the United States government supports murdering over 100,000 Iraqi children deliberately, that this was the cost of 'reasonable politics'. Given that, why should anyone care about an extra 100?

OK, you're trolling to get a reaction out of me. Fine. You don't want to have a conversation, fine. You're lying through your teeth, fine?

For what reason should I answer you?

You are too modest! But fine, since it does not matter who you are, I shall assume you are part of the unintelligable lot that makes up most the cattle of humanity, who gave you these idea? By what authority did he act, and by what authority did he give you the duty of speaking for him? Why should you, being part of that body unable to organize it's own affairs, allow you to organize ours? Or even your own?

 

[Tahuti]

Interesting that you should mention Somalia, which is rather known for the lack of law enforcement (piracy, terrorism,warlordism). Which goes to my point: laws without effective law enforcement are rather pointless. The USSR had the most advanced law code in the world; unfortunately, it's own government largely ignored it.

It's not really the lack of enforcement but rather lack of development that has led to Somali piracy: Pirates can freely assault vessels with impunity because their crew aren't covered by Xeer, since they aren't part of any Somali clan. Perhaps ships that go through the gulf of Aden should carry some Somali crew so the pirates can't legally attack the ships.

Anyway, it's completely true that laws are pointless without anything to enforce it. Though there are perhaps better examples than the USSR.

 

[ParkCungHee]

OK, you're trolling to get a reaction out of me. Fine. You don't want to have a conversation, fine. You're lying through your teeth, fine?

If I misrembered our discussion feel free to correct me. Is collaboration in such murder contemptible, acceptable, or obligated?

For what reason should I answer you?

I'm not certain you have the privilege to, so you should tell me.

It's not really the lack of enforcement but rather lack of development that has led to Somali piracy

It's certainly not, because countless nations have laid claim to the law of the sea and sent navies to enforce it, so it's absolutely untrue to say there is no law and no law enforcement in the Red Sea.

Also, from what I understand, Somalian pirates operate with impunity because Somalis view the income they collect as the due for the trade through the Gulf of Aden. Which really shows the difference between pirates and navies is academic.

 

[Tahuti]

If I misrembered our discussion feel free to correct me. Is collaboration in such murder contemptible, acceptable, or obligated?

Oh nevermind, Iraqis are corporations.

 

[Agent327]

It's not really the lack of enforcement but rather lack of development that has led to Somali piracy: Pirates can freely assault vessels with impunity because their crew aren't covered by Xeer, since they aren't part of any Somali clan. Perhaps ships that go through the gulf of Aden should carry some Somali crew so the pirates can't legally attack the ships.

Piracy was just one example of lawlessness.

 

[Cutlass]

If I misrembered our discussion feel free to correct me. Is collaboration in such murder contemptible, acceptable, or obligated?


I'm not certain you have the privilege to, so you should tell me.

OK, let's follow your Insane Troll Logic. You are opposed to the US government. The US government is the only reason pretty much all black Americans today are not slaves. Therefor you support all black Americans being slaves. Is this really the game you want to play?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

OK, let's follow your Insane Troll Logic. You are opposed to the US government. The US government is the only reason pretty much all black Americans today are not slaves. Therefor you support all black Americans being slaves. Is this really the game you want to play?

The US government is also the reason that slavery existed in the first place, and that it continued to exist.

 

[Cutlass]

The US government is also the reason that slavery existed in the first place, and that it continued to exist.

The US government caused something to happen that started 250 years before the US government came into existence?

Sorry, there is no argument to be made that slavery would not have existed had no government ever acted to cause it.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The big problem with most Libertarians (Geo-Libertarians excluded, of course) is if their ignorance or rejection of the Lockean Proviso. Locke actually taught that only the fruits of human labor can be considered legitimate property. The homesteading principle does permit holding land in order to facilitate the creation of valid property, but it was derived under the conditions where Land (using the economic definition, this term encompasses all natural resources not made by human labor) is plentiful enough that monopolizing a small piece of it does negligible harm to anyone else. It is only morally justified when one leaves as much and as good for anyone else who wishes to do likewise. In the real world, these conditions are rarely met. When they are, then zero land rent can be collected. Rent can be considered a measure of exclusion, and therefore aggression. Most of those who claim to support the non-aggression principle fail to recognize that the monopolization of land is itself the initiation of force.

It is probably impossible to eliminate all forms of aggression entirely (even breathing can be considered aggression, at least if you are stuck with someone in a small airtight room), but we can minimize it by internalizing costs and making the aggressors compensate their victims. When two or more parties are harming each other equally, then the payments they owe each other cancel each other out and can be ignored. It is also logical to ignore any harms that are less than the harm required in order to rectify them.

In a society where not everyone controls access to equally valuable natural resources, then the harm done by landowners does not automatically balance out. Those who deny others access to land should have to compensate those denied access. This can be done through personally negotiating a price or various other non-state means, but in a modern society is it probably more efficient to use a Land Value Tax plus Citizen's Dividend.


Taxation is theft, except when it is compensation for theft. Most of those who make the first part of that claim should be able to realize the second, as they tend to accept the notion that it not stealing to take back what is yours from someone who has just stolen it from you.

A Land Value Tax is not theft (at least when paired with a Citizens' Dividend), and is not really a tax any more than privately collected land rent is. (Landlords are essentially monarchs of small states.) Things like pollution taxes are basically just a streamlined tort system.

Marx and others on the left conflated Land and Capital, lumping the classically distinct categories together as "the means of production" despite huge ethical differences between the two, and those on the right who opposed them have often made the same mistake. It is easier to attack capitalists if you lump them in with privileged landlords, and easier to defend landlords when you lump them in with productive capitalists.


Secure land tenure is very helpful for facilitating economic development. Little capital can be created without it. The Tragedy of the (Unmanaged) Commons is also a real phenomenon. Many on the right have used these facts in order to defend allodial titles land, but it does not naturally follow. Georgist property conventions allow for the same upsides, but without the downsides of privilege.