Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Free Arabian Nation]

Should r/Libertarian ban non-libertarian ideologies, and why or why not?

I am starting to believe that it should, as the socialists would not give us the same reprieve that we currently give them. In fact, here are some of the rules the leftists have imposed on their boards.

Should redditors be banned from this discussion thread, why or why not?

They keep on talking about stupid subreddits.

^

[Victoriala II]

Define "fetishising".

Believing it's a right, in all likelihood.

rights isn't real, property could be anything, we live in a society and the socialist-capitalist dichotomy is bullshit

big antinomian face meme

[North Saitama]

1. *rolls eyes*

1. Wow, excellent response, 10/10, I'm nominating you for an Oscar for that stellar wordplay shutting down my statement! I've been utterly, absolutely DESTROYED like the silly little anarkiddie that I am by this amazing display of FACTS and LOGIC. Bravo, bravo! Encore!

2. You obviously don't know your history. First, the colonies that became the United States were around for nearly 170 years before the Declaration of Independence. I say "multi-generational" in that the society behind the United States had already been around for decades, to the point that multiple generations had been born and had died before 1776.

Second, they weren't "culturally homogenous", either; in fact, the colonists were a mix of multiple nationalities, including Dutch, German, Swedish, in addition to the "British", who were still not even culturally homogenous, being comprised of English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and Scots-Irish. And that is not accounting for political differences amongst the British, which were already well in effect, nor even accounting for the differences between the colonists and the people of the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Geographical differences are also not comparable, as you are talking about roughly 2 million people, but spread all over a large land area, compared to roughly 300,000 people in an area of just 28,267 mi²; modern Virginia alone is 1.5 times bigger (at 42,775 mi²), and it is still smaller than the former Virginia colony. And there were 13 colonies of varying sizes.

2. I didn't say they were "culturally homogeneous", I said they were more homogeneous than the Zapatistas, which is easy as all fuck to see if anyone looks at the cultural and ethnic makeup that's spread among the 363,000 Zapatistas.

I'll concede on geography.

3. What makes a hierarchy unjust, though? Or, more importantly, what makes your hierarchy more just than another?

3. The ability to democratically elect or remove a leader from power.

6. ONLY 25 years. Talk to me when they have grown old and big enough to have enough distinct differences to actually matter.

4. Twenty-five years as a united political entity. Before that, as mentioned previously, the various native and mestizo groups comprising the Zapatistas spent centuries developing unique ethnicities and cultures on that land. That they're more united after twenty-five years despite being vastly more culturally and ethnically heterogeneous than America was at its infancy is telling.

7. What is to stop them from doing so now? After all, drugs are also illegal elsewhere, and that doesn't stop them. During prohibition in the 1920s, people still got alcohol, too, despite being illegal.

5. Probably because they live, right now, in monetary poverty in comparison to other parts of Mexico (when monetary wealth or lack thereof isn't really an important part of their ideology), in part due to economic decisions.

9. Which is also a bold-faced lie. Tribes have been going to war with and enslaving each other for millennia, long even before recorded history. Never mind evidence that nomadic hunter-gatherers engaged in genocide as early as 10,000 years ago.

6. Gee, it's like you completely disregarded the half of my statement where I explicitly noted that early humans were usually, but not always, competitive with out-groups of other humans despite otherwise being cooperative, mutualistic, and altruistic, which is fucking obvious when you consider that that's a natural response to resource scarcities. Of course it'd look like a bold-faced lie if you don't bother reading.

And, besides, if human beings weren't naturally cooperative for the most part, explain how Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis formed mutual bonds to the point where 2% of our current genetic ancestry comes from them.

Plus, I think you are mistaking "inherently good" with a moral blank slate, which still implies that humans will act within their self-interest first and foremost, even if they don't mean to be evil.

7. Nope. Humans are inherently good; if we weren't, we wouldn't be a communal, social species. That inherently requires cooperation based along lines of mutualism and altruism, at the very least among our in-groups but most definitely among out-groups as well.

Two: I would like to see you say that with a straight face to the two ladies who own the Sunshine Cafe down the street from me, or to the owner of Hamburg Printing where I used to work in a hierarchical position as a typesetter. None of them, nor any of the small business owners in the US or elsewhere, have made millions if not billions, yet their property would be confiscated under your methodology.

8. El, you should know by now from the conversations we've had before that I'm not referring to the little businesses owned and worked on by an individual or a cooperating duo or small group of people when I'm talking about millionaire and billionaire business owners. The little businesses, by and large, are not the main concern here, except in those situations where they treat their workers as underlings rather than as equals. The bigger businesses, however, are always going to be the main issue that I'm referring to here, unless there's something like Mondragon in Spain.

1. Because I have explained it over and over.I'm rolling my eyes because of your tactic of saying "it hasn't happened, yet", even when I have noted how this is not an excuse.

2. So dismissing multiple European nations, with largely distinct cultural and political identities and attitudes, as apparently more culturally homogenous, even though England alone (not including Scotland, Wales, and Ireland) is twice as big as Chiapas.

Never mind that you ignore that all of the groups of Chiapas still likely have some cultural overlap, and likely more so than the various European countries.

3. So if someone rides populism to the leadership position, then proceeds to oppress the part of the group that didn't vote for him/her, that hierarchy is just, yet an employer buying labour from an employee, who can't even really do anything besides terminate your employment, isn't?

And don't you dare feed me "unanimous choice", as that is still not reliable, and choosing leadership is not something that can be dismissed.

4. See 2. You apparently don't account for cultural differences between European nations, or cultural overlap within the groups of Chiapas.

5. So what's to stop the Cartels from trying to get Zapatistas hooked and dependent, so that they will trade their resources away to the Cartels for more drugs? Cash isn't the only thing that the Cartels can get out of the Zapatistas.

6. If scarcity encourages competition, doesn't that all but throw your whole case on human nature out the window? Since you are basically telling me that human nature is to be nice, until people want something. And there WILL always be some sort of scarcity, whether it be power, a geographical position, etc.

This doesn't bode well for your vision of an Anarchist society, as it assumes that everybody will just be content and work nicely, as long as they are fed. Even though it is proven that humans will still want things, even if there is no survival merit, even if it is an abstract concept like power.

In fact, this is, if anything, more of a case for Capitalism, if anything. There will always be scarcity and limits to what can be had. Through selling and trading, though, humans are less inclined to violence, as they can trade with someone who has something that they want, rather than attack them and take what they want.

7. See 6.

[Idzequitch]

Alright, so I've been doing some research on Trump's potential 2020 opponents, and I found that Dem candidate Andrew Yang advocates for something he calls human-centered capitalism.

As someone who generally believes in capitalism, it's kinda nice to hear a Democratic candidate laud what has been accomplished through capitalism. But at the same time, we all know that there have been many people who have been left in the dust by America's economic system. Yang seems interested in trying to keep the core tenets of capitalism, while preventing people from abusing the system.

As something of a bleeding heart, I really would love to believe this isn't outside the realm of possibility. But he loses me where he claims the unit of his system is the person and not the dollar. It sounds nice, but how does that translate in practice?

What do you all think about all this? Would this or a similar plan work? Is this plan even capitalism at all? How can we keep our markets free, without abandoning folks to poverty? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Edit: The guy also has a section on his website about making taxes fun. Sooo... He's obviously a heretic with no credibility

[Phoenicaea]

i ve seen a pair of intervews with Ayn Rand, whose i read here, and i ve sorted out, from these, the titles of her most famous books, even if i ve not read them.

i m not going forward to read them, not in this age, not because of lack of intrigue, the opposite, still i ve got other things to read.

so, it may be too early to comment her after just a pair of interviews, nevertheless here it is a thought about what she has said in cited interviews.

from the interview, and since i see she has been regarded in this thread as a milestone of libertarian thought, an intuition brights the dylemn.

the dylemn about the difference in 'libertarianism' definition between americans and europeans. remember there, there is not thing as you say precisely 'libertarian' in europe.

the definition of 'libertarian' in europe is liberal, which means 'classical liberal', then the word you use is not different between liberal and libertarian.

it seems that liberal means what you also say as 'social liberal', in the broadest sense and not the daily cooking politics, while libertarian means classical liberal.

then here comes the dylemn. as Ayn Rand seems to claim, her philosophy has been 'sorted out' of a branch, a development, of anglo-saxon utilitarianism philosophy.

so a branch, in theory, claiming its descent from Locke, Hume, here the reason she says it as 'objectivism', while establishing a border with, against, Kant and classical phylosophy.

where does the libertarian, alias classical liberal, european philosophy comes from instead: it comes from classicism, where Kant is a milestone.

so, an insight: pursuing the same ideals, the american and the european way, they seem even incapable of dialogue between them. and that cited is a possible reason.

i summarize. philosophycally, american way is a branch of utilitarianism, which you refer as objectivism, 'emphirically based' philosophy;

while european is classical, 'onthology based', philosophy, a branch of idealism, and classical thought.

i will perhaps write down some practical application of this concept, in case i m going to comment again, which i m not sure.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Alright, so I've been doing some research on Trump's potential 2020 opponents, and I found that Dem candidate Andrew Yang advocates for something he calls human-centered capitalism.

As someone who generally believes in capitalism, it's kinda nice to hear a Democratic candidate laud what has been accomplished through capitalism. But at the same time, we all know that there have been many people who have been left in the dust by America's economic system. Yang seems interested in trying to keep the core tenets of capitalism, while preventing people from abusing the system.

As something of a bleeding heart, I really would love to believe this isn't outside the realm of possibility. But he loses me where he claims the unit of his system is the person and not the dollar. It sounds nice, but how does that translate in practice?

What do you all think about all this? Would this or a similar plan work? Is this plan even capitalism at all? How can we keep our markets free, without abandoning folks to poverty? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Edit: The guy also has a section on his website about making taxes fun. Sooo... He's obviously a heretic with no credibility

So... about Yang actually... do you as libertarians find UBI as a legitimate idea? I remember hearing that some libertarians have espoused the idea before.

[Elwher]

Alright, so I've been doing some research on Trump's potential 2020 opponents, and I found that Dem candidate Andrew Yang advocates for something he calls human-centered capitalism.

As someone who generally believes in capitalism, it's kinda nice to hear a Democratic candidate laud what has been accomplished through capitalism. But at the same time, we all know that there have been many people who have been left in the dust by America's economic system. Yang seems interested in trying to keep the core tenets of capitalism, while preventing people from abusing the system.

As something of a bleeding heart, I really would love to believe this isn't outside the realm of possibility. But he loses me where he claims the unit of his system is the person and not the dollar. It sounds nice, but how does that translate in practice?

What do you all think about all this? Would this or a similar plan work? Is this plan even capitalism at all? How can we keep our markets free, without abandoning folks to poverty? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Edit: The guy also has a section on his website about making taxes fun. Sooo... He's obviously a heretic with no credibility

So... about Yang actually... do you as libertarians find UBI as a legitimate idea? I remember hearing that some libertarians have espoused the idea before.

If funded properly I could see it. I proposes a variation on Max Reynolds Universal Basic setup. All corporate taxes would be paid in the form of special preferred nonvoting stock. This stock would be held by the government as a massive mutual fund; each citizen would, upon turning 18 or gaining emancipated minor status, receive one share, non-transferable, which would pay monthly dividends. People could also buy further shares, which would be fully transferable. This, in my world, would replace all government welfare payments.

[Idzequitch]

Alright, so I've been doing some research on Trump's potential 2020 opponents, and I found that Dem candidate Andrew Yang advocates for something he calls human-centered capitalism.

As someone who generally believes in capitalism, it's kinda nice to hear a Democratic candidate laud what has been accomplished through capitalism. But at the same time, we all know that there have been many people who have been left in the dust by America's economic system. Yang seems interested in trying to keep the core tenets of capitalism, while preventing people from abusing the system.

As something of a bleeding heart, I really would love to believe this isn't outside the realm of possibility. But he loses me where he claims the unit of his system is the person and not the dollar. It sounds nice, but how does that translate in practice?

What do you all think about all this? Would this or a similar plan work? Is this plan even capitalism at all? How can we keep our markets free, without abandoning folks to poverty? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Edit: The guy also has a section on his website about making taxes fun. Sooo... He's obviously a heretic with no credibility

So... about Yang actually... do you as libertarians find UBI as a legitimate idea? I remember hearing that some libertarians have espoused the idea before.

The idea itself is fascinating to think about. Presumably, most of the money that the government would give out in this manner would be promptly spent, which I would think would strengthen the economy. However I would be concerned about inflation, as well as how in the world this would be funded.

Despite my extreme distrust of the government, I'm not fundamentally opposed to a UBI, if done smartly. But I do have severe concerns about how it would be executed.

[North Saitama]

I'm only opposed to a UBI on the grounds that there is no reasonable way to fund it, and would still likely amount to being wealth redistribution via taxes (as money has to come from somewhere).

[Hammer Britannia]

I'm only opposed to a UBI on the grounds that there is no reasonable way to fund it, and would still likely amount to being wealth redistribution via taxes (as money has to come from somewhere).

I mean, we could just give everyone a dollar a year and call it UBI.

But to give every adult 12K a year (Yang's Number), around 229,989,364, would cost around 2.759 trillion dollars. About 67.3% the entire 2018 budget. Meaning that either taxes would have to rise, which totally worked with Regan and Clinton, Sacrifice most of our spending, or Get into so much debt that it makes the gender-studies graduate look debt-free

(I did smart nerdy economics stuff, are u proud of me daddy GM?)

[The Liberated Territories]

The UBI in all likelihood would end up as another minimum wagesque program that needs huge transfers of money each year in order to sustain itself. Inflation would probably invalidate it anyway.

[Petrolheadia]

The UBI in all likelihood would end up as another minimum wagesque program that needs huge transfers of money each year in order to sustain itself. Inflation would probably invalidate it anyway.

In Poland, we have a much smaller thing that is just baby bonus (500 PLN/month for the 2nd and each next child),,and inflation would be eating the money up if not for the good economy right now.

[The Liberated Territories]

The UBI in all likelihood would end up as another minimum wagesque program that needs huge transfers of money each year in order to sustain itself. Inflation would probably invalidate it anyway.

In Poland, we have a much smaller thing that is just baby bonus (500 PLN/month for the 2nd and each next child),,and inflation would be eating the money up if not for the good economy right now.

You guys need some G O L D E N L I B E R T Y.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I'm not extremely opposed to a UBI, but I don't think it is a good idea. Where's the money going to come from?

[Hammer Britannia]

I'm not extremely opposed to a UBI, but I don't think it is a good idea. Where's the money going to come from?

Tax Payers or Banks.

That, or we could go back to the middle ages and have Government-Sponsered Vikings plunder from lands as far away as China

[Communist Zombie Horde]

I'm not extremely opposed to a UBI, but I don't think it is a good idea. Where's the money going to come from?

The rich and businesses for sure. They can't stand hard working people and the rich have the most to lose. Either way it would end up with massive inflation.

[Northern Davincia]

I'm not extremely opposed to a UBI, but I don't think it is a good idea. Where's the money going to come from?

The rich and businesses for sure. They can't stand hard working people and the rich have the most to lose. Either way it would end up with massive inflation.

These are inconvenient facts, though.

[Elwher]

The rich and businesses for sure. They can't stand hard working people and the rich have the most to lose. Either way it would end up with massive inflation.

These are inconvenient facts, though.

The inflation would arise if the UBI were in addition to traditional welfare programs. Not necessarily if it were a replacement for them.

[The Liberated Territories]

Any form of UBI would involve depreciation and inflation. People do not value free money.

Also, believing a UBI would be compromised with the abolishment of other welfare is naive to say the least. Once an entitlement passes, it becomes extremely difficult to repeal, although that should go without saying.

[The Liberated Territories]

A bit OT and spammy (still somewhat related), but I strongly encourage people to join my new Capitalist Party in the new NS Senate! It's a moderate libertarian party, and since it's recently founded you can have a say in drafting of its constitution, platform, and all that fun crap that comes along with party politics! We can make the libertarians a force once again to be reckoned with!

Apply here!

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=465667

[Zurkerx]

A bit OT and spammy (still somewhat related), but I strongly encourage people to join my new Capitalist Party in the new NS Senate! It's a moderate libertarian party, and since it's recently founded you can have a say in drafting of its constitution, platform, and all that fun crap that comes along with party politics! We can make the libertarians a force once again to be reckoned with!

Apply here!

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=465667

Yes, I strongly implore all to join! If anyone has questions, ask me or TLT!

[Great Minarchistan]

god bless gary johnson

[LiberNovusAmericae]

god bless gary johnson

I'm surprised you like the guy.

[Great Minarchistan]

god bless gary johnson

I'm surprised you like the guy.

I dont, but for the sake of agreeableness he is a mile better than bill weld

[Northern Davincia]

I'm surprised you like the guy.

I dont, but for the sake of agreeableness he is a mile better than bill weld

This is true, but Weld is the guy I'm stuck with when the primary rolls around.