The Religion Of Libertarianism

[WAB]

Please.....Learn to use capitalization. In the case, it counts.

For the uninitiated, libertarianism is more an attitude about civil rights...a supportive attitude. This is reflected in the civil libertarianism of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is a private, non-profit organization which works to protect, preserve, and extend civil rights in the United States.

On the other hand, Libertarianism is a shitty grab-bag of half-baked and half-assed ideas passing itself off as a political movement glorifying individualism. This one associates with Ayn Rand and other whackadoodle dingbats and regularly demonstrates the oxymoronic value of the adopted name.

I consider myself a libertarian, but a civil one.

Rand hated libertarians (or Libertarians?). She called them "the hippies of the right" (or is that The Right?) She associated libertarianism with anarchism.

But many Libertarians have certainly latched onto Rand.

 

[WAB]

Please.....Learn to use capitalization. In the case, it counts.

For the uninitiated, libertarianism is more an attitude about civil rights...a supportive attitude. This is reflected in the civil libertarianism of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is a private, non-profit organization which works to protect, preserve, and extend civil rights in the United States.

On the other hand, Libertarianism is a shitty grab-bag of half-baked and half-assed ideas passing itself off as a political movement glorifying individualism. This one associates with Ayn Rand and other whackadoodle dingbats and regularly demonstrates the oxymoronic value of the adopted name.

I consider myself a libertarian, but a civil one.

Rand hated libertarians (or Libertarians?). She called them "the hippies of the right" (or is that The Right?) She associated libertarianism with anarchism.

But many Libertarians have certainly latched onto Rand.

While I have been called a whackadoodle many times, I've never been called a whackadoodle dingbat. I rather like that, and might use it as my signature.


**Sorry, I meant to edit my post, not quote it!

 

[whollygoats]

Please.....Learn to use capitalization. In the case, it counts.

For the uninitiated, libertarianism is more an attitude about civil rights...a supportive attitude. This is reflected in the civil libertarianism of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is a private, non-profit organization which works to protect, preserve, and extend civil rights in the United States.

On the other hand, Libertarianism is a shitty grab-bag of half-baked and half-assed ideas passing itself off as a political movement glorifying individualism. This one associates with Ayn Rand and other whackadoodle dingbats and regularly demonstrates the oxymoronic value of the adopted name.

I consider myself a libertarian, but a civil one.

Rand hated libertarians (or Libertarians?). She called them "the hippies of the right" (or is that The Right?) She associated libertarianism with anarchism.

But many Libertarians have certainly latched onto Rand.

While I have been called a whackadoodle many times, I've never been called a whackadoodle dingbat. I rather like that, and might use it as my signature.


**Sorry, I meant to edit my post, not quote it!

'Salright....We give whackadoodle dingbats a fair amount of latitude. I'd say we're liberal about it, but you'd probably take it wrong.

 

[scombrid]

It is simply what happens when you leave people alone. Is leaving people alone a delusional lie?

The delusion is the belief that it will always produce an optimal outcome but for some intervention that blocks the magical free hand.

 

[scombrid]

Sub-optimal outcomes? What might I mean?

Monopoly. You end up needing government to break that up when a player in the market becomes sufficiently powerful that they become a government unto themselves that can manipulate the market.

The commons. I have a population of fish that at Biomass Maximum Sustainable Yield (Bmsy) can produce 1,000,000 tons of harvestable surplus. Nobody owns those fish out there off grand banks. They fetch $10/kg dockside. Everybody that can goes and gets theirs. They harvest 2,000,000 tons for a bunch of years running and knock the stock down to 10% Bmsy. Suddenly there's no big fish out there and catch starts dropping. Market could dictate that they'd stop fishing that fish and go to something else and the stock would recover. But the price keeps going up as the catch goes down and people keep on fishing until you have too few breeders and the stock collapses due to recruitment failure. Now nobody has anything to catch. The free market collapses the population. And that may have big knock-on affects to the local environment.

So what do you do? Privatize the fish? Funny thing with that, it takes government intervention and enforcement just like any other regulation. Government has to come up with some scheme to sell individual quotas and then create an enforceable statute that stops anyone else from fishing.

How about acid rain from coal fire? I'm a power consumer that wants cheap power. Coal is the cheapest thing going in my neck of the woods. Wind blows the sulfur five states away. You know the rational consumer doesn't demand that the power company clean up because somebody somewhere else is getting polluted. So what's New York to do about the negative externality coming from the Tennessee and Ohio Valley industries? Take them to court and prove that they sterilized a bunch of water with sulfuric acid? That really helps the lakes in the long term.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I never claimed our mixed economy was a free economy. Check your premises.

"Mixed economy"?

Dictators that control corporations are freely making decisions.

According to you it is the magic of free markets.

I call it a mixed economy, and you say I call it free market. Check your premises.

So let's compare.

Mixed economy: The government tells the corporation it may pollute as long as it is under a specified level. If it exceeds that level it must pay a fine to the government, the people suffering get no benefit. If the corporation has recently annoyed the government, then the government will allow the people who have suffered to join a class action suit.

Free market: The property owner tells the corporation "you do not have my permission to pollute my property."

Your ideal system: The collective's herd of sheep just walked through the collective's river, polluting the collective's water supply. People in the collective are getting sick, but the collective apothecary is out of medicine. The party elders decreed that untermensche has just volunteered to dig a well. (What, you thought you would be one of those elders? Ha!) Untermensche doesn't remember volunteering, but that doesn't matter since the party said he did so therefore he did. Last time someone didn't remember volunteering and said so out loud, he disappeared in the middle of the night. Serves him right for loving dictatorships. Untermensche hates dictatorships which is why he obeys the party's dictate that he dig a well. This whole mess is blamed on capitalism.

What conservatives and libertarians promote is not capitalism, but neo-feudalism. If anything, it's somewhat anti-capitalist.

When libertarians promote capitalism, you think that is the same as conservatives promoting neo-feudalism. That says a lot about your understanding.

 

[untermensche]

I call it a mixed economy, and you say I call it free market. Check your premises.

I claim that the idea of "free market" is impossible.

All markets are controlled. None are free.

It just depends who controls them and how they are controlled.

Mixed economy: The government tells the corporation it may pollute as long as it is under a specified level. If it exceeds that level it must pay a fine to the government, the people suffering get no benefit. If the corporation has recently annoyed the government, then the government will allow the people who have suffered to join a class action suit.

Polluting is not something anyone should be free to do.

To control pollution is called sanity.

How it effects economic activity is meaningless. It is a priority.

Free market: The property owner tells the corporation "you do not have my permission to pollute my property."

Telling people things is free speech.

Your ideal system: The collective's herd of sheep just walked through the collective's river, polluting the collective's water supply. People in the collective are getting sick, but the collective apothecary is out of medicine. The party elders decreed that untermensche has just volunteered to dig a well. (What, you thought you would be one of those elders? Ha!) Untermensche doesn't remember volunteering, but that doesn't matter since the party said he did so therefore he did. Last time someone didn't remember volunteering and said so out loud, he disappeared in the middle of the night. Serves him right for loving dictatorships. Untermensche hates dictatorships which is why he obeys the party's dictate that he dig a well. This whole mess is blamed on capitalism.

We are a collective, a herd, whether you like it or not.

We can either protect the herd from things like dictators or we can let the weakest in the herd be abused by dictators.

I choose to protect the weakest from the most corrupt.

You choose to give the most corrupt the ability to abuse the weakest.

You offer no protections from abuse of the weakest by the strongest.

You pretend there is no herd so you can pretend that not tending to all of the herd has no consequences.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Telling people things is free speech.

And when a cop yells "Get on the Ground Now, Hands behind your Head!" that's just free speech.

Your ideal system: The collective's herd of sheep just walked through the collective's river, polluting the collective's water supply. People in the collective are getting sick, but the collective apothecary is out of medicine. The party elders decreed that untermensche has just volunteered to dig a well. (What, you thought you would be one of those elders? Ha!) Untermensche doesn't remember volunteering, but that doesn't matter since the party said he did so therefore he did. Last time someone didn't remember volunteering and said so out loud, he disappeared in the middle of the night. Serves him right for loving dictatorships. Untermensche hates dictatorships which is why he obeys the party's dictate that he dig a well. This whole mess is blamed on capitalism.

We are a collective, a herd, whether you like it or not.

I was referring to the collective people owning a herd of sheep. I wasn't calling people a herd or sheep. Try reading that again and get back to me with a response to what I wrote.

I choose to protect the weakest from the most corrupt.

Which is why, in what I wrote, I had you obeying any and every command because lack of obedience to the party elders is a love of dictatorship.

You offer no protections from abuse of the weakest by the strongest.

That you don't see the protections I offer doesn't mean I don't offer them.

Now I was referring to the collective owning a herd, not the collective being a herd. Try again.

 

[untermensche]

And when a cop yells "Get on the Ground Now, Hands behind your Head!" that's just free speech.

Non sequitur.

That is a fix after the pollution has occurred.

You have prevented no pollution.

You've merely given some huge polluter a slap on the wrist.

And cops do not yell at huge polluters.

They invite them and their team of lawyers to talk.

We are a collective, a herd, whether you like it or not.

I was referring to the collective people owning a herd of sheep.

We are a herd of humans.

Whether you like it or not.

No person is their own creation with freedom they have won themselves.

Any freedom is because people in the herd have created it and protect it.

I choose to protect the weakest from the most corrupt.

Which is why, in what I wrote, I had you obeying any and every command because lack of obedience to the party elders is a love of dictatorship.

This shows a derangement of mind and does not follow in any way.

If I protect a child from danger have I followed the party elders and expressed a love of dictatorship?

Your commentary is from outer space.

You offer no protections from abuse of the weakest by the strongest.

That you don't see the protections I offer doesn't mean I don't offer them.

That you can't list any reasonable protections except imaginary scenarios with cops and scenarios that occur after the fact shows you have none.

You offer a system where the strong more easily dominate the weak and call it liberty.

Sure, it's greater liberty for dictators and less liberty for the vast humanity that to you is meaningless.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Non sequitur.

Nope. If denying a polluter permission to pollute your property is nothing more than free speech, a cop yelling orders is nothing more than free speech.

We are a herd of humans.

Non sequitur. The example clearly referred to a herd of sheep being taken care of by the humans.

You know, it is really sad that you equate your position to that of sheep. I consider myself a human.

This shows a derangement of mind and does not follow in any way.

Yes, but not in the way you meant. I was describing your thought processes when I said your hatred of dictatorship is why you are so blindly obedient.

So. The third scenario. The village of humans has a herd of sheep. Notice the word "herd" refers to the sheep, that the humans are called a "village". Do you understand it yet?

Your ideal system: The village of humans has a herd of sheep. Village refers to people, herd refers to sheep. The herd of sheep just walked through the collective's river, polluting the collective's water supply. People in the collective are getting sick, but the collective apothecary is out of medicine. The party elders decreed that untermensche has just volunteered to dig a well. (What, you thought you would be one of those elders? Ha!) Untermensche doesn't remember volunteering, but that doesn't matter since the party said he did so therefore he did. Last time someone didn't remember volunteering and said so out loud, he disappeared in the middle of the night. Serves him right for loving dictatorships. Untermensche hates dictatorships which is why he blindly obeys the party's dictate that he dig a well. This whole mess is blamed on capitalism.

 

[untermensche]

Nope. If denying a polluter permission to pollute your property is nothing more than free speech, a cop yelling orders is nothing more than free speech.

You have no plan that prevents him from doing it.

You have a cop yelling at the wind as the pollution fills the air.

Non sequitur. The example clearly referred to a herd of sheep being taken care of by the humans.

We are a herd of humans.

Presently we have a lot of predators making the lives of others worse.

I want to stop the predators and take power from dictators.

You want to give the dictators more power and claim they will use it wisely when YOU give it to them.

This shows a derangement of mind and does not follow in any way.

Yes, but not in the way you meant. I was describing your thought processes when I said your hatred of dictatorship is why you are so blindly obedient.

This is so fucking delusional I waste my time.

My position is I want to replace dictators with democratic structures.

My position is that democracy is better than dictatorship.

And just like one person should not be allowed to own slaves one person should not be allowed to dictate over another.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You have a cop yelling at the wind as the pollution fills the air.

So a cop yelling at a person is the same as a cop yelling at the wind.

We are a herd of humans.

Non sequitur. I guess this means you agree with my analysis of how your ideal system would deal with pollution.

This is so fucking delusional I waste my time.

I'm glad we agree that describes your position. You will blindly obey the party to show you oppose dictators, never stopping to question anything because questions means you support dictators.

Every time I've asked you questions, you used that as proof of my alleged support of dictators.

 

[Sue Sponte]

The problem with free market constructs is there is no such thing and never will be. It's purely a theoretical construct which cannot exist in reality.

In theory, a free market may or may not result in improved efficiencies and performance. But no market can exist absent some system to enforce it, which necessitates government oversight. Absent that, it is simply a function of power and force.

The idea that the less government oversight, the better it will all become, is, in my humble view, a construct with no real application. In reality, things of value require protection from power or force. Absent that, there is no free market. Value is simply taken by force. The "free market" cannot exist absent power being directed to maintain that system.

We can debate forever the degree to which government is needed to promote market efficiencies, but the idea that these things can simply exist without any governmental system is inherently flawed. Without some government, value in the market is simply consumed by force or power. We may wish for people wanting freedom to engage in transactions "without being told what to do," but the choice is to either have a government system to protect such things or "being told what to do" at the point of a mob or gun. And good luck arguing that the governmental power to enforce fairness will actually be utilized by the powerful to result in fair outcomes.

 

[Jarhyn]

The biggest problem a lot of people who "have faith in people" have is that they ignore the fact that, even while most people are mostly right about most things, humans are still all the same species and similarly the product of the same evolution, and as such we humans are all susceptible to behaving in ways that are subdtly damaging to our survival as a species in favor of immediate success of ourselves and our individual genetic lines.

In short, informational asymmetry is advantageous in the zero sum game of "who survives among the population", but is detrimental to "how much of a population exists", and "how efficient the population is with resources". Capitalism provides individual winners and losers within the group, but makes losers of the whole group.

 

[whollygoats]

The problem with free market constructs is there is no such thing and never will be. It's purely a theoretical construct which cannot exist in reality.

In theory, a free market may or may not result in improved efficiencies and performance. But no market can exist absent some system to enforce it, which necessitates government oversight. Absent that, it is simply a function of power and force.

The idea that the less government oversight, the better it will all become, is, in my humble view, a construct with no real application. In reality, things of value require protection from power or force. Absent that, there is no free market. Value is simply taken by force. The "free market" cannot exist absent power being directed to maintain that system.

We can debate forever the degree to which government is needed to promote market efficiencies, but the idea that these things can simply exist without any governmental system is inherently flawed. Without some government, value in the market is simply consumed by force or power. We may wish for people wanting freedom to engage in transactions "without being told what to do," but the choice is to either have a government system to protect such things or "being told what to do" at the point of a mob or gun. And good luck arguing that the governmental power to enforce fairness will actually be utilized by the powerful to result in fair outcomes.

Ceteris paribus and all...

 

[untermensche]

So a cop yelling at a person is the same as a cop yelling at the wind.

Non sequitur. I guess this means you agree with my analysis of how your ideal system would deal with pollution.

This is so fucking delusional I waste my time.

I'm glad we agree that describes your position. You will blindly obey the party to show you oppose dictators, never stopping to question anything because questions means you support dictators.

Every time I've asked you questions, you used that as proof of my alleged support of dictators.

You've stopped discussing anything and have moved into outer space.

I am opposed to capitalist dictators.

These people that run companies and corporations with dictatorial control.

I am opposed to systems of dictatorship.

Small or large.

Either you support democracy over dictatorship as I do or you endorse and support these dictatorships that are everywhere and are destroying the planet.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I am opposed to capitalist dictators.

But support communist dictators.

The only form of dictatorship you oppose is the only form that is unable to throw people into the gulag. The only thing a capitalist can do is say "you're fired". You're just find with communist dictators killing people as long as they are doing it for the people.

You also support the dictatorship of the majority even though you have defined it out of existence. If the majority says "we have voted and the minority is to be killed" that simply doesn't happen in your mind.

 

[untermensche]

I am opposed to capitalist dictators.

But support communist dictators.

Those that think Anarchism has any connection to what has existed under the name of Communism are very uninformed.

You definitely support dictators that exist.

You make empty claims of alleged dictators you imagine that I support.

One of us is speaking about morality and the danger of allowing dictatorships.

The other doesn't understand the difference between Communism and Anarchism.

 

[lpetrich]

I am opposed to capitalist dictators.

But support communist dictators.

The only form of dictatorship you oppose is the only form that is unable to throw people into the gulag. The only thing a capitalist can do is say "you're fired". You're just find with communist dictators killing people as long as they are doing it for the people.

That's because your great villain, the government, coerces your heroes into not doing so. Yes, coerces your heroes.

If you want to see what capitalists can do when governments don't oppress them in this fashion, look at company goons fighting labor unions or company towns or slave plantations or criminal gangs. Look at railroad companies fighting each other in  Frog wars (the "frog" is the crossover part of a track switch).

Thomas Edison Drove the Film Industry to California | Mental Floss He lived and worked in northern New Jersey, and that's where the movie business started. But he held a lot of patents related to the technology involved in making movies and showing them, and he very rigorously enforced them, attacking competition with them. It was not only in the courts, but also extrajudicially:

According to Steven Bach in his book, Final Cut, the MPPC even went to the extreme “solution” of hiring mob-affiliated thugs to enforce the patents extra-judiciously. Pay up — or else.

So Edison's competition moved to Los Angeles, a continent away from New Jersey. Judges there were less sympathetic to Edison's claims of patent violation, and it was harder for Edison to send goons across the continent to attack those competitors.

 

[lpetrich]

The "free market" is shorthand for millions of people making billions of transactions and trillions of decisions every day without being told what to do. Not exactly a deity really. Faith in the free market is actually faith in people.

Virtuous-anarchist idealism. Should I have expected anything more?