So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Part_Time_Civer]

It's neccesary to make his argument intelligible.

If I simply stated "The State is unnecessary, because there are 50 stripes on the American Flag" you would want an explanation on why that's important, why that's relevant, and why I feel this is a strong argument. If I responded to questions on this matter with lines like "you tell me" I could not be regarded as arguing in good faith.

So far, Cutlass has only offered vague platitudes and has refused to elaborate on the substance of his argument. If he can't mount a moral argument against slavery, then he can't mount a moral defense of the state.

Ok, I'll give it a try. As a libertarian, I believe slavery is wrong because it imposes labour (and sometimes, even sex) on people who do not want to perform it. Since the people involved didn't voluntarily sign a slavery contract, this constitutes agression. Agression is wrong.

 

[Cutlass]

In what sense? Slaves were used as plantation labourers, not as tenant farmers. (Even sharecropping is in essence a piece-rate system, rather than a system of rents.)

Rent seeking is an economics term which refers to actions taken to gain a benefit from government actions that they would not have access to otherwise.

Rent seeking in this case means getting the government to do what they could do themselves, but would rather someone else did for them.

You think private entities could have successfully suppressed slave revolts?

Certainly. Maybe not in every case. But the whole of the slaver community has an extreme interest in suppressing slave revolts. So they will act together.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Certainly. Maybe not in every case. But the whole of the slaver community has an extreme interest in suppressing slave revolts. So they will act together.

The slaves don't have an interest in acting together?

Were the Haitians aware of that?

 

[Cutlass]

The slaves don't have an interest in acting together?

Were the Haitians aware of that?

They have less opportunity. Certainly when they can slaves run away or fight back. That doesn't change the fact that chattel slavery in the Americas worked perfectly well without any government involvement for well over a century.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

They have less opportunity. Certainly when they can slaves run away or fight back. That doesn't change the fact that chattel slavery in the Americas worked perfectly well without any government involvement for well over a century.

So why were slaves in Haiti able to rebel, when government power that protected the slavers waned? Surely such an event would have increased the power of the plantation owners, in Cutlass-land.

 

[El_Machinae]

To force a company to stop poluting for instance.

Oh, well, sure. But that's the same as the democratic process forcing a company to stop polluting. Buncha local decide they want the polluting stopped, and the courts or the law forces them to stop.

 

[Cutlass]

So why were slaves in Haiti able to rebel, when government power that protected the slavers waned? Surely such an event would have increased the power of the plantation owners, in Cutlass-land.

I really don't understand what you peoples problem is here or what in the hell you are trying to say.

Was government in any way, shape, or form, necessary for the creation or perpetration of chattel slavery in the Americas?

No.

End of story.

Was government necessary for the abolition of slavery? Yes, absolutely.

Was there any real chance of slavery ending without government ending it? Not that I can see. Yeah, some slaves escaped. And some successfully revolted. But the rest of them did not.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

So why were slaves in Haiti able to rebel, when government power that protected the slavers waned? Surely such an event would have increased the power of the plantation owners, in Cutlass-land.

Haiti does not compare to the American South.

This video talks about the Haitian revolution.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I really don't understand what you peoples problem is here or what in the hell you are trying to say.

Was government in any way, shape, or form, necessary for the creation or perpetration of chattel slavery in the Americas?

No.

End of story.

Was government necessary for the abolition of slavery? Yes, absolutely.

Was there any real chance of slavery ending without government ending it? Not that I can see. Yeah, some slaves escaped. And some successfully revolted. But the rest of them did not.

This is a beautiful temper tantrum. Just repeat the same points over and over, because I'm right I'm right I'm right, and you're wrong, wrong, wrong, because I'm right!

Haiti does not compare to the American South.

This video talks about the Haitian revolution.

Indeed. Slavery found its most raw and shamelessly brutal form in San Domingo.

Great video, but it doesn't disprove anything I said. If you want a more in-depth take on the subject, check out the book I'm reading right now: The Black Jacobins.

 

[Cutlass]

This is a beautiful temper tantrum. Just repeat the same points over and over, because I'm right I'm right I'm right, and you're wrong, wrong, wrong, because I'm right!

So what is wrong with it? It's not like any of you have made a counter argument other than "you're wrong".

 

[caketastydelish]

Libertarianism doesn't work (or at least it should put let's put it this way: It's inhumane) because it's based on the principle that if someone can not afford to eat/a roof under their head/ healthcare, that's too bad for them and they'll just have to die.

That's the main problem I have with it. I'm not a fan of Obama in many ways for example but I couldn't agree more with him that our healthcare system needed a big change (although his changes aren't near enough). Some of these libertarians literally say 'let them die' (people that can't afford basic necessities to stay alive without help from the government) and I find that appalling at best.

Sure some people can and should have more/better material possessions/luxuries than others, but everyone should be guaranteed the following things:

1. A (reasonably) safe place to live
2. Health care
3. Food and water.

edit: Yes, to provide these things, taxes will have to be raised, and they should be raised on the rich. But even were this to happen, the rich would still have FAR more than the poor.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So what is wrong with it? It's not like any of you have made a counter argument other than "you're wrong".

We've conducted a philosophical turning movement such that your point literally has no meaning any more. We can't fully disprove it, because it's based upon a hypothetical. But we can so thoroughly poke holes through it that the ludicrousness of it becomes apparent. That's called critical thought.

I mean, your central point hinges around the idea that slave-owners were simply too lazy to actually do things themselves, so they got the government to do it for them because it was there; but these supposedly lazy slave-owners were still so motivated and organized as to be able to perpetuate slavery across the country in absence of a government by themselves without use of the state monopoly of power and protection of property rights.

At the very best, this still makes the US government a willing accessory to the perpetuation of slavery, which is hardly an enviable position to defend. But then you've already rushed to defend libertarianism in this thread, rather than agree with the unwashed Red & Black Menace, so who's really surprised?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

This is a beautiful temper tantrum. Just repeat the same points over and over, because I'm right I'm right I'm right, and you're wrong, wrong, wrong, because I'm right!



Indeed. Slavery found its most raw and shamelessly brutal form in San Domingo.

Great video, but it doesn't disprove anything I said. If you want a more in-depth take on the subject, check out the book I'm reading right now: The Black Jacobins.

It doesn't disprove anything you say but it gives information about Haiti. The situation there was far different than that in the American South. Government or not, slavery in Haiti was likely to end.

EDIT: Who's the Black menace?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It doesn't disprove anything you say but it gives information about Haiti. The situation there was far different than that in the American South. Government or not, slavery in Haiti was likely to end.

But it doesn't explain why slavery in the US wasn't likely to end. Unless you're saying that slavery in the US wasn't so bad so the slaves wouldn't be as motivated to try and end it once government power waned?

EDIT: Who's the Black menace?

PCH, our resident Tolstoyan anarchist.

 

[Cutlass]

We've conducted a philosophical turning movement such that your point literally has no meaning any more. We can't fully disprove it, because it's based upon a hypothetical. But we can so thoroughly poke holes through it that the ludicrousness of it becomes apparent. That's called critical thought.

I mean, your central point hinges around the idea that slave-owners were simply too lazy to actually do things themselves, so they got the government to do it for them because it was there; but these supposedly lazy slave-owners were still so motivated and organized as to be able to perpetuate slavery across the country in absence of a government by themselves without use of the state monopoly of power and protection of property rights.

Umm, no that has nothing to do with my point. And if you think it does, I have to assume you haven't actually read what I have written.

At the very best, this still makes the US government a willing accessory to the perpetuation of slavery, which is hardly an enviable position to defend. But then you've already rushed to defend libertarianism in this thread, rather than agree with the unwashed Red & Black Menace, so who's really surprised?

Since no one can be bothered in this thread to actually read what I write, there's no real point to continuing. You are all so determined to attack me for points that you pulled out of your ass that I don't even have anything to respond to.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Umm, no that has nothing to do with my point. And if you think it does, I have to assume you haven't actually read what I have written.





Since no one can be bothered in this thread to actually read what I write, there's no real point to continuing. You are all so determined to attack me for points that you pulled out of your ass that I don't even have anything to respond to.

The feeling is mutual.

EDIT: I got bored. This is what you said, which is what I just said you said.

your central point hinges around the idea that slave-owners were simply too lazy to actually do things themselves, so they got the government to do it for them because it was there; but these supposedly lazy slave-owners were still so motivated and organized as to be able to perpetuate slavery across the country in absence of a government by themselves without use of the state monopoly of power and protection of property rights.

Nope. The government did not choose to end it. But it would have existed if the government did not exist at all. Certainly slavers used government when and how they could. But at no time was government ever necessary for slavery to exist. It existed by raw force all by itself. And at no time did government, least of all the US government, cause slavery to exist.

Rent seeking. It was never necessary for government to get involved to support slavery. But it certainly made it easier.

Rent seeking in this case means getting the government to do what they could do themselves, but would rather someone else did for them.

Certainly. Maybe not in every case. But the whole of the slaver community has an extreme interest in suppressing slave revolts. So they will act together.

They have less opportunity. Certainly when they can slaves run away or fight back. That doesn't change the fact that chattel slavery in the Americas worked perfectly well without any government involvement for well over a century.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Libertarianism doesn't work (or at least it should put let's put it this way: It's inhumane) because it's based on the principle that if someone can not afford to eat/a roof under their head/ healthcare, that's too bad for them and they'll just have to die.

That's the main problem I have with it. I'm not a fan of Obama in many ways for example but I couldn't agree more with him that our healthcare system needed a big change (although his changes aren't near enough). Some of these libertarians literally say 'let them die' (people that can't afford basic necessities to stay alive without help from the government) and I find that appalling at best.

Sure some people can and should have more/better material possessions/luxuries than others, but everyone should be guaranteed the following things:

1. A (reasonably) safe place to live
2. Health care
3. Food and water.

edit: Yes, to provide these things, taxes will have to be raised, and they should be raised on the rich. But even were this to happen, the rich would still have FAR more than the poor.

Most of us -socialists, "social-democrats", liberalists an libertarians alike- agree that those who can't take care of themselves deserve help. Sure as hell I do. But here's the difference between you and me. You believe that this redistribution of help (from the rich to the poor) should be done through a vehicle called "the state". I was brought up by government to believe this as well. Now I realize that helping should be volutary, not forced upon by law.

 

[caketastydelish]

Most of us -socialists, "social-democrats", liberalists an libertarians alike- agree that those who can't take care of themselves deserve help. Sure as hell I do. But here's the difference between you and me. You believe that this redistribution of help (from the rich to the poor) should be done through a vehicle called "the state". I was brought up by government to believe this as well. Now I realize that helping should be volutary, not forced upon by law.

The problem is even though there are a few good doers (yes, even very rich ones) like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, they are too few and far between. Herbert Hoover advocated a plan similar to yours during the great depression but it didn't do near enough. Even what FDR did wasn't enough, but he made some real effort.

Before you ask, I'm not a marxist, anarchist, or whatever (anymore).

 

[Mise]

Oh, well, sure. But that's the same as the democratic process forcing a company to stop polluting. Buncha local decide they want the polluting stopped, and the courts or the law forces them to stop.

Yes exactly - I'm sure private citizens could replicate everything that the government currently does, but I'm not sure what the difference would be in that case...

 

[Falconiano]

Libertarianism is obsolete when your civ researches Telecommunications.

There are plenty of examples as to why telecomms have turned libertarian societies into oligarchies.
This is the scheme of what is happening:
1. People know and believe what is on the mass media, and therefore mass medias can control the decisional power of a nation (the population).
2. Corporations own mass media, which control the people, which control decisional power = Corporations own the decisional power of a nation.
3. An little oligarchy of corporates control the nation.

That being said, I don't have a solution for this.
Every direction to get out of this would lead to a ton of bad, just like every social revolution.