Libertarian Discussion Thread

[36 Camera Perspective]

On balance, they were. They created a society based on private property, individualism, meritocracy, and liberty.

er if your reading of 'classical liberalism' means 'not communist or feudalist' then yeah, sure... that's not a good reading though

I would say a classical liberal society is characterized by minimal or non-existent government intervention in the economy, and a legal system that respects civil rights, private property, and the rule of law.

[The Liberated Territories]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balcerowicz_Plan

[Elwher]

Any government will always act in the government's interest, any benefit to any other group is purely coincidental.

No. The people in government might act in their own interests, but nobody truly acts in favor of government interests. What we call “government interest” is really just a series of individual interests. Methodological individualism.

Bureaucracy, whether government, corporate, or whatever, act as a living organism. It works to grow at the expense of any other organism in its sphere of influence, and its sole purpose is to live and grow. The individuals involved in it either work to advance the bureau or else they are expelled as waste products.

[Orostan]

So then instead of troops under an American flag shooting strikers, it would be troops under a corporate flag? And Socialists, especially Communists, don't want to give the government more power.

Even though, Socialism can only work with constant government intervention in the lives of the civilians? Because, how is resources gonna not be hoarded by somebody without constant intervention?

Why would anyone take something they cannot use in a normal situation? People don't hoard things unless it benefits them (usually). They don't just decide to hoard things randomly.

Why does Orostan never address Lysenkoism as the cause of famines and food shortages in Commie countries?

Why are "droughts, famines, and floods" more devastatingly lethal in Commie countries?

Because Lysenkoism wasn't the primary problem. Sure, it may have exacerbated the problem. But it alone did not cause famines.

Droughts and famines are more devastating in countries without mechanized agriculture. The famines in China and the USSR happened during periods of industrialization, when agriculture was only starting to become mechanized.

? it doesn't characterise early america either

On balance, they were. They created a society based on private property, individualism, meritocracy, and liberty.

George "Draft the Drunks" Washington changed very little for the average person, other than taxes getting a bit higher. The American Revolution benefited the wealthiest people the most, who coincidentally were part of the bourgeois and had funded it.

[Hammer Britannia]

Even though, Socialism can only work with constant government intervention in the lives of the civilians? Because, how is resources gonna not be hoarded by somebody without constant intervention?

Why would anyone take something they cannot use in a normal situation? People don't hoard things unless it benefits them (usually). They don't just decide to hoard things randomly.

Yes, unless it benefits them

As in, it makes their lives better even if it prevents others from having a good life. Unless everyone just gets everything they want for free (Which is pure unobtainable Utopianism) people are going to hoard something, anything, that makes their lives more comfortable, more exciting, more profitable, etc.

[Nulla Bellum]

Bzzzt. Wrong. Lysenkoism was panned as psuedo-scientific bunk from the start. Instead of listening to the scientific community, the communists accelerated Lysenkoism and imprisoned its naysayers. For four decades, communist countries enforced Lysenko's idiocy.

Pssst. Mechanized farming tills dry soil faster in a drought. That has nothing to do with the enforced Lysenkoist bureaucracy telling farmers that actually know how to farm that if they plant and harvest at the wrong times and hack leaves off growth the wheat sprouts will magically turn into corn.

Lysenkoism caused hunger and food shortages and mass starvation.

I don't want to say Russian communists are stupid, but Hitler wrote a book giving them 11 years notice that he was coming for the Ukraine and they were still shocked. After starving millions to death with Lysenko's Holomodor, they still clung to that idiocy for 40 more years. It took them over 70 years to stop imprisoning people who pointed out communism is stupid and realize maybe all those people they starved, executed, and imprisoned had a point.

[Orostan]

Why would anyone take something they cannot use in a normal situation? People don't hoard things unless it benefits them (usually). They don't just decide to hoard things randomly.

Yes, unless it benefits them

As in, it makes their lives better even if it prevents others from having a good life. Unless everyone just gets everything they want for free (Which is pure unobtainable Utopianism) people are going to hoard something, anything, that makes their lives more comfortable, more exciting, more profitable, etc.

Why? Why would they hoard things they cannot use? Why would someone hoard food in a normal situation? Why would someone hoard couches?

Bzzzt. Wrong. Lysenkoism was panned as psuedo-scientific bunk from the start. Instead of listening to the scientific community, the communists accelerated Lysenkoism and imprisoned its naysayers. For four decades, communist countries enforced Lysenko's idiocy.

Pssst. Mechanized farming tills dry soil faster in a drought. That has nothing to do with the enforced Lysenkoist bureaucracy telling farmers that actually know how to farm that if they plant and harvest at the wrong times and hack leaves off growth the wheat sprouts will magically turn into corn.

Lysenkoism caused hunger and food shortages and mass starvation.

I don't want to say Russian communists are stupid, but Hitler wrote a book giving them 11 years notice that he was coming for the Ukraine and they were still shocked. After starving millions to death with Lysenko's Holomodor, they still clung to that idiocy for 40 more years. It took them over 70 years to stop imprisoning people who pointed out communism is stupid and realize maybe all those people they starved, executed, and imprisoned had a point.

No. Lysenkoism is shit, yes, but your assessment of the holodomor is wrong. Very wrong. It was a primarily natural famine caused by plant disease and drought, and then exacerbated by corruption within the Soviet government. You can't just say "Lysenkoism!" whenever anyone tells you that famines don't simply happen. You keep on repeating your claim, but do not provide any evidence for it.

Here's a paper on the holdomor.

[Hammer Britannia]

Yes, unless it benefits them

As in, it makes their lives better even if it prevents others from having a good life. Unless everyone just gets everything they want for free (Which is pure unobtainable Utopianism) people are going to hoard something, anything, that makes their lives more comfortable, more exciting, more profitable, etc.

Why? Why would they hoard things they cannot use? Why would someone hoard food in a normal situation? Why would someone hoard couches?

You seem to think you can't use something if it's hoarded under communism

Somebody may hoard food in case there is a drought, a plague, or just because they are fat and need to eat a shit ton of food.

Somebody may hoard couches so they can relax with their friends, have a place to sleep, or even exchange it for something else.

[Orostan]

Why? Why would they hoard things they cannot use? Why would someone hoard food in a normal situation? Why would someone hoard couches?

You seem to think you can't use something if it's hoarded under communism

Somebody may hoard food in case there is a drought, a plague, or just because they are fat and need to eat a shit ton of food.

Somebody may hoard couches so they can relax with their friends, have a place to sleep, or even exchange it for something else.

1) They can be, but there would be no point to hoarding
2) Ok, so long as they aren't depriving others of food that's alright. Also;

>what is rationing

3) Your last sentence shows me you have no idea how Communism works. Exchanging something with another person would be pointless. You could just get whatever they had for 'free' at the store if you wanted it, and they could get a couch for 'free' at the store too. If someone has ten couches in their house, but somehow they use them all, then they are not hoarding. They are just using multiple products, the same way someone can use multiple drawers in their desk. If they have ten couches but only use one, they are hoarding. And why would they keep those nine other couches around if they can just freely send them to be recycled to give them back to the furniture store?

[Hammer Britannia]

You seem to think you can't use something if it's hoarded under communism

Somebody may hoard food in case there is a drought, a plague, or just because they are fat and need to eat a shit ton of food.

Somebody may hoard couches so they can relax with their friends, have a place to sleep, or even exchange it for something else.

1) They can be, but there would be no point to hoarding
2) Ok, so long as they aren't depriving others of food that's alright. Also;

>what is rationing

3) Your last sentence shows me you have no idea how Communism works. Exchanging something with another person would be pointless. You could just get whatever they had for 'free' at the store if you wanted it, and they could get a couch for 'free' at the store too. If someone has ten couches in their house, but somehow they use them all, then they are not hoarding. They are just using multiple products, the same way someone can use multiple drawers in their desk. If they have ten couches but only use one, they are hoarding. And why would they keep those nine other couches around if they can just freely send them to be recycled to give them back to the furniture store?

I'll take Utopianism for one thousand.

[Nulla Bellum]

Educate thyself, Orostan.

The reasons you want to minimize Lysenkoism's role in forced starvation in Russia and other communist countries is that you have to admit Lysenkoism caught on with those communist governments BECAUSE THE IDEAS WERE UNDERSTOOD AS MARXIST. When you admit these governments rejected over a century of scientific knowledge to pursue disasterous agricultural policies in the name of Marxism, you have to admit Marxism is psuedo-science as well. Marxists, applying Marxist theory into biology and agriculture, starved millions of people to death in the name of Marxism. There is no refutation of that fact to be made. The only grain left in your bag of tricks is "Marxists don't understand Marx."

Which is almost as pathetic as calling the existence of chromosomes a "bourgeoisie construct."

Take your pick. Marxism is stupid, or Marxists are stupid.

[Orostan]

1) They can be, but there would be no point to hoarding
2) Ok, so long as they aren't depriving others of food that's alright. Also;

>what is rationing

3) Your last sentence shows me you have no idea how Communism works. Exchanging something with another person would be pointless. You could just get whatever they had for 'free' at the store if you wanted it, and they could get a couch for 'free' at the store too. If someone has ten couches in their house, but somehow they use them all, then they are not hoarding. They are just using multiple products, the same way someone can use multiple drawers in their desk. If they have ten couches but only use one, they are hoarding. And why would they keep those nine other couches around if they can just freely send them to be recycled to give them back to the furniture store?

I'll take Utopianism for one thousand.

>what is post-scarcity society

Educate thyself, Orostan.

The reasons you want to minimize Lysenkoism's role in forced starvation in Russia and other communist countries is that you have to admit Lysenkoism caught on with those communist governments BECAUSE THE IDEAS WERE UNDERSTOOD AS MARXIST. When you admit these governments rejected over a century of scientific knowledge to pursue disasterous agricultural policies in the name of Marxism, you have to admit Marxism is psuedo-science as well. Marxists, applying Marxist theory into biology and agriculture, starved millions of people to death in the name of Marxism. There is no refutation of that fact to be made. The only grain left in your bag of tricks is "Marxists don't understand Marx."

Which is almost as pathetic as calling the existence of chromosomes a "bourgeoisie construct."

Take your pick. Marxism is stupid, or Marxists are stupid.

Marx never said anything about genetics or agriculture. He wrote about economics and society. Lysenkoism is a misinterpretation of what Marx wrote, at most. It's the product of a dictatorial system, at least. Marxism isn't about biology or argriculture, it's about economics. Your argument that Marxism=Lysenkoism doesn't apply to anything.

Also, Lysenkoism does not cause droughts and floods.

[Hammer Britannia]

>what is post-scarcity society

>What is Bullshit

We cannot have enough to allow everyone to live even-somewhat comfortably. There are too many humans with too many different needs.

This is especially true when everyone only works voluntarily.

I just love it when Communists pull their "Muh Post-Scarcity" card, it makes good memes.

[Orostan]

>what is post-scarcity society

>What is Bullshit

We cannot have enough to allow everyone to live even-somewhat comfortably. There are too many humans with too many different needs.

This is especially true when everyone only works voluntarily.

I just love it when Communists pull their "Muh Post-Scarcity" card, it makes good memes.

Post-scarcity society is not possible today, but as technology advances we get closer to it. Right now we have enough food to feed more than the earth's population, and can produce enough medicine for every person on the planet. Socialism can at least offer most people a better quality of life than before. Right now we can make most labor safe and pleasant, and I think that people would voluntarily work if socialism were established tommorow.

[Hammer Britannia]

>What is Bullshit

We cannot have enough to allow everyone to live even-somewhat comfortably. There are too many humans with too many different needs.

This is especially true when everyone only works voluntarily.

I just love it when Communists pull their "Muh Post-Scarcity" card, it makes good memes.

Post-scarcity society is not possible today, but as technology advances we get closer to it. Right now we have enough food to feed more than the earth's population, and can produce enough medicine for every person on the planet. Socialism can at least offer most people a better quality of life than before. Right now we can make most labor safe and pleasant, and I think that people would voluntarily work if socialism were established tommorow.

Ah yes, the "But muh technology" card.

Technology has been improving since the caveman era, we've still haven't gotten anywhere near Post-Scarcity. So, at this rate, we'd be able to feed everyone 3 meals (actual
western meals, not just a bowl of rice and a glass of water) a day by 3024, able to give everyone a home by 7961, and reach near post-scarcity by 15159 AD

This is, of course, presuming we don't all get blown up or the population doesn't increase to ridiculous amounts. Because that's never been heard of.

In all seriousness. If post scarcity was possible, we wouldn't need socialism to begin with, because we'd already be at that point. Because, it is with the company's best interest to make sure nobody starves to death because the less dead people the more customers and the more customers the more money.

[Orostan]

Post-scarcity society is not possible today, but as technology advances we get closer to it. Right now we have enough food to feed more than the earth's population, and can produce enough medicine for every person on the planet. Socialism can at least offer most people a better quality of life than before. Right now we can make most labor safe and pleasant, and I think that people would voluntarily work if socialism were established tommorow.

Ah yes, the "But muh technology" card.

Technology has been improving since the caveman era, we've still haven't gotten anywhere near Post-Scarcity. So, at this rate, we'd be able to feed everyone 3 meals (actual
western meals, not just a bowl of rice and a glass of water) a day by 3024, able to give everyone a home by 7961, and reach near post-scarcity by 15159 AD

This is, of course, presuming we don't all get blown up or the population doesn't increase to ridiculous amounts. Because that's never been heard of.

In all seriousness. If post scarcity was possible, we wouldn't need socialism to begin with, because we'd already be at that point. Because, it is with the company's best interest to make sure nobody starves to death because the less dead people the more customers and the more customers the more money.

1) About a third of the world's food goes to waste. We can feed 10 billion people.
2) There are more empty homes than homeless people in America. We already can give everyone a home.
3) Are you pulling these numbers out of your ass or what? As soon as we get reliable access to space, even just our solar system, we should be done with scarcity.
4) A companies best interest is to make money. Businesses set prices based on their own goals and the amount of money they've got to make to break even or profit. More customers also does not always mean more money. A lot of people are unable to pay the price for food, and if the price was lowered enough so that they could pay, food companies would not make as much money! In America tons of food goes to waste every year because it is cheaper to throw it out than give it to the starving.

The way you view this is very simplistic, and not reflective of the real world.

[Hammer Britannia]

Are you pulling these numbers out of your ass or what?

No. U.

[Orostan]

Are you pulling these numbers out of your ass or what?

No. U.

I cited all of my sources.

[Elwher]

3) Are you pulling these numbers out of your ass or what? As soon as we get reliable access to space, even just our solar system, we should be done with scarcity.

Until we get the cost per pound for space travel down to a reasonable level, it makes no difference what is up there, we cannot afford to get it down here. Also, unless you are hiding technology we don't know about, rare mineral availability from space is a hit and miss thing at best.

4) A companies best interest is to make money. Businesses set prices based on their own goals and the amount of money they've got to make to break even or profit. More customers also does not always mean more money. A lot of people are unable to pay the price for food, and if the price was lowered enough so that they could pay, food companies would not make as much money! In America tons of food goes to waste every year because it is cheaper to throw it out than give it to the starving.

The way you view this is very simplistic, and not reflective of the real world.

What is, in my opinion, unrealistic is to make predictions on specific technology advances. This is coming from a space nut, one who would volunteer in a heartbeat for a mission to colonize Mars. I am, however, realistic enough to state that while I hope you are right about space mining, there is no proof yet.

[The Liberated Territories]

Getting to the point of colonizing space would require exponentially greater amounts of resources, pulling us further from post scarcity.

[Hammer Britannia]

No. U.

I cited all of my sources.

Even if you did, because you didn't, it's still far from not being horseshit

1. Even if 1/3 of the food isn't thrown out and spread equally, this doesn't mean everyone will have enough food for confort of even basic survival. All of the sources I have seen just said they can feed 10 billion, never said anything about enough food for survival or comfort.
2. Shitty Ghettos and houses made out of trash and containers do not count as houses. And even if they were actual houses, that's just in the USA.
3. You do realize that man colonizing the stars is just gonna cause 5-10 billion more people to exist per planet, ergo causing us to go farther from Post-Scarcity.
4. "Not reflective of the real world" Says the Marxist who thinks magical technology and space mining will save Humanity and cause post-scaricty.

[Orostan]

3) Are you pulling these numbers out of your ass or what? As soon as we get reliable access to space, even just our solar system, we should be done with scarcity.

Until we get the cost per pound for space travel down to a reasonable level, it makes no difference what is up there, we cannot afford to get it down here. Also, unless you are hiding technology we don't know about, rare mineral availability from space is a hit and miss thing at best.

4) A companies best interest is to make money. Businesses set prices based on their own goals and the amount of money they've got to make to break even or profit. More customers also does not always mean more money. A lot of people are unable to pay the price for food, and if the price was lowered enough so that they could pay, food companies would not make as much money! In America tons of food goes to waste every year because it is cheaper to throw it out than give it to the starving.

The way you view this is very simplistic, and not reflective of the real world.

What is, in my opinion, unrealistic is to make predictions on specific technology advances. This is coming from a space nut, one who would volunteer in a heartbeat for a mission to colonize Mars. I am, however, realistic enough to state that while I hope you are right about space mining, there is no proof yet.

1) Even so, space offers an enourmous quantity of minerals. Space technology as it is advancing now is on the path towards affordable space flight.
2) If technology is advancing so is our society and economic system. Scarcity has been reduced by the industrial revolution and global transport. We have crises of overproduction regularly. At whatever speed, technology is going to get rid of scarcity eventually. There isn't any proof that space mining can work, but from what we do know it is feasible.

Getting to the point of colonizing space would require exponentially greater amounts of resources, pulling us further from post scarcity.

Space mining should be the first thing anybody tries with good space travel.

[Hammer Britannia]

1) Even so, space offers an enourmous quantity of minerals. Space technology as it is advancing now is on the path towards affordable space flight.

It also has an enourmous quantity of land

Land for people to live in and produce babies

Lots of babies

That require lots of resources

[Orostan]

1) Even so, space offers an enourmous quantity of minerals. Space technology as it is advancing now is on the path towards affordable space flight.

It also has an enourmous quantity of land

Land for people to live in and produce babies

Lots of babies

That require lots of resources

Which you can find in space. People aren't pumping out babies 24/7, you know.

[Hammer Britannia]

It also has an enourmous quantity of land

Land for people to live in and produce babies

Lots of babies

That require lots of resources

Which you can find in space. People aren't pumping out babies 24/7, you know.

353,000 babies

353,000 babies a fucking day

Now, that's just on a single planet with limited resources.

Imagine if you had thousands of planets in a "post-scarcity" society where everyone gets anything for free and medicine makes death uncommon.

That post-scarcity is gonna fucking crash.