So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Ajidica]

That's like the guy I was just arguing with on reddit who's a libertarian, but also a Confederate apologist. The incompatibility of their views doesn't register on them.

I found your problem.
We at CFC are intellectuals.

 

[caketastydelish]

There seems to be great debate towards what 'libertarian' actually means (I've heard lots of you say Ron Paul is not a real libertarian).

But every single different definition of what libertarian means, and I must have seen at least 50 of them, none of them are principles that I'd agree with.

 

[Cutlass]

I found your problem.
We at CFC are intellectuals.

And yet we've seen the same here plenty of times. Particularly by those who shall remain nameless....

 

[Cutlass]

There seems to be great debate towards what 'libertarian' actually means (I've heard lots of you say Ron Paul is not a real libertarian).

But every single different definition of what libertarian means, and I must have seen at least 50 of them, none of them are principles that I'd agree with.

Well, those who point to Paul not being as authoritarian as other Republicans tend to ignore that the primary threats to the liberty of the American people has always been the states and private actors, and that the federal government is a very distant third. So by being "states rights" and "deregulation", Paul is actually a lot more dangerous to liberty than most Republicans.

 

[caketastydelish]

I disagree with both Paul and most republicans.

 

[Antilogic]

Has anyone posted everything yet? Trolololo.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, those who point to Paul not being as authoritarian as other Republicans tend to ignore that the primary threats to the liberty of the American people has always been the states and private actors, and that the federal government is a very distant third.

The NSA, Vietnam and Iraq are obviously concoctions by some redneck state. Wait!

 

[Cutlass]

The NSA, Vietnam and Iraq are obviously concoctions by some redneck state. Wait!

I never said the feds were perfect. But your snark takes nothing away from my point, which is that for nearly everyone in America, the states, even the private sector, is many times more likely to trample on your liberty than the federal government is.

 

[Tahuti]

I never said the feds were perfect. But your snark takes nothing away from my point, which is that for nearly everyone in America, the states, even the private sector, is many times more likely to trample on your liberty than the federal government is.

That depends on which state and which private sector actor we're talking about. California and many a Silicon Valley corporation are a lot better than the Federal government. Jim Crow Louisiana obviously not. Nor is Monsanto, for that matter. However, part of Monsanto's terribleness is that several Czars (who are Feds) are Monsanto affiliated. Most good by the feds primarily consists of stopping states and corporations from bad things, really.

 

[Cutlass]

That depends on which state and which private sector actor we're talking about. California and many a Silicon Valley corporation are a lot better than the Federal government. Jim Crow Louisiana obviously not. Nor is Monsanto, for that matter. However, part of Monsanto's terribleness is that several Czars (who are Feds) are Monsanto affiliated. Most good by the feds primarily consists of stopping states and corporations from bad things, really.

The point that some states, and some corporations are on occasion better than the feds is not an actual argument. Because most states most of the time and most corporations most of the time are worse.

There's no perfect choice. But going with the averages means you fear the states the most. And reigning in the power of the states matters most. And the force to do that is the feds.

 

[Traitorfish]

"What principles are important to you?"
"Fear."
"Oh? What about freedom, or just-"
"Fear."
"But-"
"FEAR".

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

The situation is bad because the restaurants are bad. End of story. There's no need to bring anything else to the discussion -- the situation is bad because the restaurants are bad. Why talk about choice when the reason that the situation is bad is because the restaurants are bad? All it does is make you, well, wrong.

I will accept that the statement "workers had little choice in the 19th century" is true if what you mean by "little choice" is "poor working conditions". However, owing to the fact that the English language has completely different words and phrases for "little choice" and "poor working conditions", each with completely different meanings, I can't accept that your statement is actually written in English. If you want to dismiss the difference between our positions as "a matter of semantics", then fine; I am sure that what you mean by "semantics" is actually "basic English".


Lots of people have given reasons for that. Ask the history nerds.

With 'semantics' I meant that you are talking about the symptom, whereas I am talking about the cause. Concerning the "reasons" (I presume you mean "proof"?) I have -as stated- yet to see them.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

No, I am not. You just don't know what the word "free" means. A free market is one in which people are, you know, free, to make their own choices. What you want is a coercive market, where people are compelled to take bad choices, because the people in power have the power to take away all the good choices and force others to make either a bad choice, or a worse choice.

A free market is a market where actors can choose with whom to trade. If you can choose whether to work for some company or not (regardless of whether not doing so is practically feasible or not) than that market qualifies as free. If there's only 1 buyer (employer in this example) however, then the market may be free, but it's is certainly not competitive.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/free-market.html


Btw, I did not state what "I want".

 

[Traitorfish]

With 'semantics' I meant that you are talking about the symptom, whereas I am talking about the cause. Concerning the "reasons" (I presume you mean "proof"?) I have -as stated- yet to see them.

What proof have you given? Your whole argument rests on the assumption that high labour-mobility produces good working conditions, and low labour-mobility produces poor working conditions, but you've made no attempt to support this assumption with empirical evidence.

 

[Cutlass]

A free market is a market where actors can choose with whom to trade. If you can choose whether to work for some company or not (regardless of whether not doing so is practically feasible or not) than that market qualifies as free. If there's only 1 buyer (employer in this example) however, then the market may be free, but it's is certainly not competitive.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/free-market.html


Btw, I did not state what "I want".

And if a market is coercive, then it is not free. Labor is always a coercive market, because labor has no choice but to work.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

And if a market is coercive, then it is not free. Labor is always a coercive market, because labor has no choice but to work.

What do you mean with coercive?

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

What proof have you given? Your whole argument rests on the assumption that high labour-mobility produces good working conditions, and low labour-mobility produces poor working conditions, but you've made no attempt to support this assumption with empirical evidence.

That is true, I have not given any empirical proof. I would find it pretty hard to supply empirical proof, due to time constraints, therefore I will expand on my reasoning (which you can then contest of course).

I believe that there was relatively few businesses in the 19th century (premise 1). With 'relatively', I mean relative to the number of people searching for work. Because of this, employers had a lot of "market power" (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market-power.asp), in my logic this constitutes conclusion 1, and will function as premise 2 simultaneously. Most people (including entrepreneurs), pursue financial self-interest up to a certain point (premise 3). Offering bad working conditions saves money from the employers perspective (premise 4). This lead 19th century entrepreneurs to offer bad working conditions (conclusion 2). Premise 1 ensures that workers cannot succesfully search for alternate employment which offers better working conditions (in other words, the labour market was relatively uncompetitive). Hence the workers' response was to form trade unions and thereby increase their own market power relative to employers.

 

[Tahuti]

The point that some states, and some corporations are on occasion better than the feds is not an actual argument. Because most states most of the time and most corporations most of the time are worse.

There's no perfect choice. But going with the averages means you fear the states the most. And reigning in the power of the states matters most. And the force to do that is the feds.

The bottom line is that states may screw up more often, but if the feds screw up, it's usually worse. For instance, it would be a lot better if the feds constitutionally would have compelled the states to implement universal healthcare, than to administer it federally. The bigger the area of a jurisdiction, the more easily it can be controlled by special interests. There is a reason corporations lobby the feds and not the states. Which is why the affordable care act contains so much BS that has little to do with health care.

And if a market is coercive, then it is not free. Labor is always a coercive market, because labor has no choice but to work.

It's more accurate to say that people have no choice but to sustain themselves, if they wish to live. Performing labor is one way to accomplish this. You can easily increase bargaining powers of workers without harming (small) businesses by divorcing the acquiring of life needs from work, like Denmark does.

 

[Traitorfish]

That is true, I have not given any empirical proof. I would find it pretty hard to supply empirical proof, due to time constraints, therefore I will expand on my reasoning (which you can then contest of course).

I believe that there was relatively few businesses in the 19th century (premise 1). With 'relatively', I mean relative to the number of people searching for work. Because of this, employers had a lot of "market power" (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market-power.asp), in my logic this constitutes conclusion 1, and will function as premise 2 simultaneously. Most people (including entrepreneurs), pursue financial self-interest up to a certain point (premise 3). Offering bad working conditions saves money from the employers perspective (premise 4). This lead 19th century entrepreneurs to offer bad working conditions (conclusion 2). Premise 1 ensures that workers cannot succesfully search for alternate employment which offers better working conditions (in other words, the labour market was relatively uncompetitive). Hence the workers' response was to form trade unions and thereby increase their own market power relative to employers.

Mate, an internally-consistent ass-pull is still an ass-pull.

 

[Cutlass]

What do you mean with coercive?

The relationship between labor and employers is highly coercive, because labor has no choice but to accept some employment. Since all possible employers know that, all of them can offer a below free market wage and conditions. Labor has no choice but to accept these, because the alternative is homelessness, and probably death. Welfare, at least in the US, is not sufficient to change that. And most of the world does not even have welfare as weak as the US has it.

Because all employers have this power, almost the power of life and death, over employees, no possible "free market" outcome is possible. The labor markets function as a monopsony, as the link I posted before says. This is a market failure, and it means that they entire economy will be poorer and weaker than it would be if it were a free market, because the difference in wages is a dead weight loss to the world.

There will be less wealth for everyone. Because the economy will grow less.

The bottom line is that states may screw up more often, but if the feds screw up, it's usually worse. For instance, it would be a lot better if the feds constitutionally would have compelled the states to implement universal healthcare, than to administer it federally. The bigger the area of a jurisdiction, the more easily it can be controlled by special interests. There is a reason corporations lobby the feds and not the states. Which is why the affordable care act contains so much BS that has little to do with health care.

Except that the states utterly and completely suck at those things compared to the feds. Look at all the existing welfare programs in the US. The fed part is pretty well run, the state and local parts are crappily run. States should not be allowed to have anything to do with social programs. Doing that is terribly harmful to the recipients.

It's more accurate to say that people have no choice but to sustain themselves, if they wish to live. Performing labor is one way to accomplish this. You can easily increase bargaining powers of workers without harming (small) businesses by divorcing the acquiring of life needs from work, like Denmark does.

There are good arguments for some form of a guaranteed minimum income, independent of work. However that is a really bad substitute for a high minimum wage. There are just so many benefits to a high wage, and there are so many costs to a low wage, that it should never be tolerated, even when a universal income is implemented.