Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[New Paine]

I subscribe to the zeitgeist theory of politics. For me, the real decline of libertarianism came around the start of 2015, when the nascent Trumpian movement took off, and then continued with Brexit. This trend towards Trumpism and populism can even been seen on this website. I distinctly remember back in 2012, 2013 most forms of "rightists" on this website were a tea-partier, a libertarian, or a more traditional neo-conservative, with a sprinkling of fascists and populists and the like but they never made the majority (*cough libcal cough*). Now, it seems that small latter group has overtaken the right, with ideologies that where once confined to the "Dark Enlightenment" enjoying popularity where it would once be seen as fringe. Likewise the right (on this website and in general) have become increasingly hostile to ideas such as free trade and the tenants of classical liberalism, and now would rather ally themselves with authoritarian socialists and tankies.

Simply put, the "zeitgeist" had moved from a relatively libertarian one, with the rise of the Tea Party and Ron Paul and the like in 2008-2014, to a populist one in 2015 and beyond. And we suffered the worst because of it.

It appears that most of those Libertarians you described were not really Libertarians and just liked the memes. The far-right are masters when it comes to the recruitment of disenfranchised white males on the autism spectrum.

[Duvniask]

A quite meaningless statement in political discourse, unless you clarify whatever you mean by it.

A liberal's conception of economic freedom is very different from a socialist's, and I would definitely argue the latter more completely encapsulates the idea of "freedom".

A socialist's definition of freedom is a pick-and-choose kind of freedom, as are all systems of positive rights. A positive right by definition means a positive obligation for someone else. If, for example, someone is said to have a "right" to food, that means that someone else has an obligation to grow, harvest, and transport that food to that person. Some 1600-1700 years ago, the Roman Empire tried that. The result was serfdom, where farmers were tied to their land, because they had an "obligation" to grow food. I don't know about you, but I don't call that freedom.

This is all-around a bad argument, and the mental gymnastics necessary to come up with it must've been something to behold. You will get nowhere with this kind of reasoning.

There has never been a society where the procurement of food, in whatever form, wasn't necessary. A society does not function without food for its members, and whenever you have a society where even a single individual is not spending their time procuring food, it becomes necessary for the others to supply them with said food; otherwise they will starve and die. In practice, unless you want nothing more than complete subsistence, this is always necessary. In our time, no one is forcing people to produce food, yet people do it anyway for various reasons. If there was a right to food it would obligate society to provide it, but that doesn't mean people have to be made serfs to do so; people can enter into this line of work and be compensated for it in the same way as any other line of work. I mean for fuck sake, this is like saying that the right to have a lawyer in court means we must enslave people to become lawyers or the right to see a doctor means we have to force people to go to medical school; it doesn't work like that. Get our of your libertarian ivory tower and take a look at the real world.

Second: your denigration of positive rights entirely undermines your own position. The property regimes necessary to maintain any capitalist society are positive rights. The enforcement of contracts, the legal recognition to hold property comes from the state. Your property doesn't exist in nature, in the Hobbesian free-for-all, where anyone stronger than you can lay claim to whatever you own and take it away, at which point there is nothing you can do about it. You having any legal right to property places obligations on society too. All rights (that I can think of at the top of my head) have both positive and negative aspects. The right to life is just as much as right to keep living (if possible) as it is a right to not be killed. Even an imaginary negative right like "freedom from death" places positive obligations upon others to keep you alive. The right to own property is first and foremost a positive one, because property doesn't meaningfully exist in the state of nature. Unless your ilk recognizes this fact, you will continue to be a laughing stock.

A quite meaningless statement in political discourse, unless you clarify whatever you mean by it.

A liberal's conception of economic freedom is very different from a socialist's, and I would definitely argue the latter more completely encapsulates the idea of "freedom".

Socialism does not permit individuals to set the terms of economic trade however they wish, therefore it is less free.

Capitalism does not permit individuals to set the terms of economic trade however they wish, either. It is always limited by the conditions of the trade. All too often, the capitalist's freedom is the freedom to live under misery and starvation or become a proletarian if you aren't one of the lucky few. Most are forced by necessity into selling their labor power to others, in order that they gain the necessities of life. To call this "freedom" is farcical, because whatever you "wish" for is conditioned by your material circumstances, and can easily lead to you willingly engaging in exploitative relationships.

The difference is that, rather than adhere to abstraction, the socialist conception of freedom is concerned with enabling individuals the fulfillment of their person, with both positive and negative liberties playing a role. The freedom for both poor and rich men to sleep under a bridge is nothing compared to the freedoms that comes from being guaranteed the necessities of life, the right to an education, the right to a home and under socialism, the right to participate as in economic life as a democratic individual. All these are the lower-level foundation upon which we become far more free than in their absence. To not be held back (the negative side of liberty) you must have the means to go forward (the positive side of liberty). Just to illustrate, in case the point didn't get across, why should anyone give a shit about the right to property if there was nothing to ever guarantee the ability to hold property in the first place?

And let's just look at what you said once more. Do you not see how destructive to freedom it would be if individuals were allowed to sell themselves into slavery, to do indentured servitude? Do you really think that, historically, the people doing this were truly doing so "willingly"? I hope not, because that would be ridiculous; it would mean you totally ignore the forceful nature that lead to this act being a "consensual" exchange. To say what I said before, in other words, the conditions of the contract/exchange/trade do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in the real world; a fact libertarians ignore at their own peril.

[Byzconia]

The Libertarian Party seems to be quickly coalescing around Jacob Hornberger. I think it is likely he'll be the Party's 2020 candidate.

Although to be frank I don't think I'll bother voting this year. The Libertarian Party will never win, and there is no reason for me to vote for Democrat or Republican. I doubt they'll break a percent this time, the republicans seem to have dropped any opposition they had against voting for Trump and he will take an even larger share of the vote. Meanwhile the Democrats are torn between an unelectable radical socialist like Bernie Sanders or someone as sleazy as Joe Biden. I would say in either scenario Trump is the "lesser evil" but I hate that it had to come to that point.

Lmao at calling a run-of-the-mill social democrat like Bernie Sanders an "unelectable radical socialist." You people live in such a massive bubble it isn't even funny.

Better now to watch the world burn under its own stupidity. The debt will one day catch up to us and there will be an economic disaster greater than the Great Depression. But no, print more money and pretend we can afford all the nice things. SMH

Yeah, the Chinese might repossess California or something! Oh noezzzz.

Absolutely love it when right-libertarians demonstrate they know fuck all about how the economy works. That is my drug.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Better to let Harvard divert the entire economy towards subsidizing ever more elaborate sexual countersignals...

[Neu California]

Better to let Harvard divert the entire economy towards subsidizing ever more elaborate sexual countersignals...

Wut?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Better to let Harvard divert the entire economy towards subsidizing ever more elaborate sexual countersignals...

I don't think there are many people advocating that. Let alone the entire economy.

[The Liberated Territories]

Lmao at calling a run-of-the-mill social democrat like Bernie Sanders an "unelectable radical socialist." You people live in such a massive bubble it isn't even funny.

He's unelectable. He's being beaten by freaking Warren.

Yeah, the Chinese might repossess California or something! Oh noezzzz.

Absolutely love it when right-libertarians demonstrate they know fuck all about how the economy works. That is my drug.

Tell me who you are again, besides Nationstates Social Democrat number 576410?

The debt is a problem. It means higher inflation, taxes, and less credit (not that I want the gov. to borrow, but better during war then right now.)

[Kowani]

Lmao at calling a run-of-the-mill social democrat like Bernie Sanders an "unelectable radical socialist." You people live in such a massive bubble it isn't even funny.

He's unelectable. He's being beaten by freaking Warren.

Literally where?

The debt is a problem. It means higher inflation,

Well, no.

taxes,

Not a problem

and less credit

If debt is denominated in one’s sovereign currency, a government cannot default.
Seriously people, learn MMT.

[Byzconia]

Lmao at calling a run-of-the-mill social democrat like Bernie Sanders an "unelectable radical socialist." You people live in such a massive bubble it isn't even funny.

He's unelectable. He's being beaten by freaking Warren.

What poll are you referencing? And he's apparently so "unelectable" that he's the most popular Senator in America.

Yeah, the Chinese might repossess California or something! Oh noezzzz.

Absolutely love it when right-libertarians demonstrate they know fuck all about how the economy works. That is my drug.

Tell me who you are again, besides Nationstates Social Democrat number 576410?[/quote]
A) Not a social democrat.

B) This isn't an argument.

The debt is a problem. It means higher inflation, taxes, and less credit (not that I want the gov. to borrow, but better during war then right now.)

I didn't say the debt isn't a problem, it's just not a problem in the way deficit hawks try to paint it. The US isn't financially insolvent, we don't have to eliminate the entire debt overnight, we can do it gradually over a long, long period of time. Likewise, there are ways to fund public programs that don't involve foreign loans--such as, I don't know, raising taxes on billionaires. And also gutting the military budget.

[The Liberated Territories]

He's unelectable. He's being beaten by freaking Warren.

Literally where?

The debt is a problem. It means higher inflation,

Well, no.

taxes,

Not a problem

and less credit

If debt is denominated in one’s sovereign currency, a government cannot default.
Seriously people, learn MMT.

Absolute hogwash. They more money owed, the more interest needs to be paid, which means higher taxes. Or inflation, depending on how government's treat it. The reason the effect is not felt is due to the bubble caused by easy money policy.

[Northern Davincia]

Capitalism does not permit individuals to set the terms of economic trade however they wish, either. It is always limited by the conditions of the trade. All too often, the capitalist's freedom is the freedom to live under misery and starvation or become a proletarian if you aren't one of the lucky few. Most are forced by necessity into selling their labor power to others, in order that they gain the necessities of life. To call this "freedom" is farcical, because whatever you "wish" for is conditioned by your material circumstances, and can easily lead to you willingly engaging in exploitative relationships.

The difference is that, rather than adhere to abstraction, the socialist conception of freedom is concerned with enabling individuals the fulfillment of their person, with both positive and negative liberties playing a role. The freedom for both poor and rich men to sleep under a bridge is nothing compared to the freedoms that comes from being guaranteed the necessities of life, the right to an education, the right to a home and under socialism, the right to participate as in economic life as a democratic individual. All these are the lower-level foundation upon which we become far more free than in their absence. To not be held back (the negative side of liberty) you must have the means to go forward (the positive side of liberty). Just to illustrate, in case the point didn't get across, why should anyone give a shit about the right to property if there was nothing to ever guarantee the ability to hold property in the first place?

And let's just look at what you said once more. Do you not see how destructive to freedom it would be if individuals were allowed to sell themselves into slavery, to do indentured servitude? Do you really think that, historically, the people doing this were truly doing so "willingly"? I hope not, because that would be ridiculous; it would mean you totally ignore the forceful nature that lead to this act being a "consensual" exchange. To say what I said before, in other words, the conditions of the contract/exchange/trade do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in the real world; a fact libertarians ignore at their own peril.

Under misery? Material luxuries for the working class would not exist if that were true. Under threat of starvation? That is the state of nature, and is reasonable for as long as scarcity exists.
It's fair to work in order to survive. It is unfair to expect others to provide for you without offering anything in return. You have no right to things which must be provided by others, that is a privilege.
I also have no problem with voluntary indentured servitude, but slavery is permanent and offers no chance of ending a contract that was formerly voluntary.

[Elwher]

I agree with the need to define terms before entering into a discussion of them.

To me, economic freedom means that I have the right to enter into any voluntary contracts with another legal adult, as long as they do not directly involve parties not agreeing to the contracts, and to have said contracts enforced by the courts.

I'd say it also must necessarily include the right not only to enter into a contract or exchange, but to choose not to do so. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Of course, the right to enter into a contract implies the right to decline any contract. That is why I included the word voluntary in my definition.

[Elwher]

A socialist's definition of freedom is a pick-and-choose kind of freedom, as are all systems of positive rights. A positive right by definition means a positive obligation for someone else. If, for example, someone is said to have a "right" to food, that means that someone else has an obligation to grow, harvest, and transport that food to that person. Some 1600-1700 years ago, the Roman Empire tried that. The result was serfdom, where farmers were tied to their land, because they had an "obligation" to grow food. I don't know about you, but I don't call that freedom.

This is all-around a bad argument, and the mental gymnastics necessary to come up with it must've been something to behold. You will get nowhere with this kind of reasoning.

There has never been a society where the procurement of food, in whatever form, wasn't necessary. A society does not function without food for its members, and whenever you have a society where even a single individual is not spending their time procuring food, it becomes necessary for the others to supply them with said food; otherwise they will starve and die. In practice, unless you want nothing more than complete subsistence, this is always necessary. In our time, no one is forcing people to produce food, yet people do it anyway for various reasons. If there was a right to food it would obligate society to provide it, but that doesn't mean people have to be made serfs to do so; people can enter into this line of work and be compensated for it in the same way as any other line of work. I mean for fuck sake, this is like saying that the right to have a lawyer in court means we must enslave people to become lawyers or the right to see a doctor means we have to force people to go to medical school; it doesn't work like that. Get our of your libertarian ivory tower and take a look at the real world.

Second: your denigration of positive rights entirely undermines your own position. The property regimes necessary to maintain any capitalist society are positive rights. The enforcement of contracts, the legal recognition to hold property comes from the state. Your property doesn't exist in nature, in the Hobbesian free-for-all, where anyone stronger than you can lay claim to whatever you own and take it away, at which point there is nothing you can do about it. You having any legal right to property places obligations on society too. All rights (that I can think of at the top of my head) have both positive and negative aspects. The right to life is just as much as right to keep living (if possible) as it is a right to not be killed. Even an imaginary negative right like "freedom from death" places positive obligations upon others to keep you alive. The right to own property is first and foremost a positive one, because property doesn't meaningfully exist in the state of nature. Unless your ilk recognizes this fact, you will continue to be a laughing stock.

Socialism does not permit individuals to set the terms of economic trade however they wish, therefore it is less free.

Capitalism does not permit individuals to set the terms of economic trade however they wish, either. It is always limited by the conditions of the trade. All too often, the capitalist's freedom is the freedom to live under misery and starvation or become a proletarian if you aren't one of the lucky few. Most are forced by necessity into selling their labor power to others, in order that they gain the necessities of life. To call this "freedom" is farcical, because whatever you "wish" for is conditioned by your material circumstances, and can easily lead to you willingly engaging in exploitative relationships.

The difference is that, rather than adhere to abstraction, the socialist conception of freedom is concerned with enabling individuals the fulfillment of their person, with both positive and negative liberties playing a role. The freedom for both poor and rich men to sleep under a bridge is nothing compared to the freedoms that comes from being guaranteed the necessities of life, the right to an education, the right to a home and under socialism, the right to participate as in economic life as a democratic individual. All these are the lower-level foundation upon which we become far more free than in their absence. To not be held back (the negative side of liberty) you must have the means to go forward (the positive side of liberty). Just to illustrate, in case the point didn't get across, why should anyone give a shit about the right to property if there was nothing to ever guarantee the ability to hold property in the first place?

And let's just look at what you said once more. Do you not see how destructive to freedom it would be if individuals were allowed to sell themselves into slavery, to do indentured servitude? Do you really think that, historically, the people doing this were truly doing so "willingly"? I hope not, because that would be ridiculous; it would mean you totally ignore the forceful nature that lead to this act being a "consensual" exchange. To say what I said before, in other words, the conditions of the contract/exchange/trade do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in the real world; a fact libertarians ignore at their own peril.

The one place I totally agree with you is that the right to property is a purely positive one, and not one found in nature and that most rights, if not all, are partly positive ones.

The difference, to me, is the voluntary nature of the positive aspects of the rights. If I grow food under capitalism, I choose who to trade it to and under what terms. Under socialism, my food is being taken under terms set by the government or the collective. That, to me, makes capitalism a more free system than socialism.

[Phoenicaea]

in most countries deficit is caused by not levying taxes on great societies

[Duvniask]

Capitalism does not permit individuals to set the terms of economic trade however they wish, either. It is always limited by the conditions of the trade. All too often, the capitalist's freedom is the freedom to live under misery and starvation or become a proletarian if you aren't one of the lucky few. Most are forced by necessity into selling their labor power to others, in order that they gain the necessities of life. To call this "freedom" is farcical, because whatever you "wish" for is conditioned by your material circumstances, and can easily lead to you willingly engaging in exploitative relationships.

The difference is that, rather than adhere to abstraction, the socialist conception of freedom is concerned with enabling individuals the fulfillment of their person, with both positive and negative liberties playing a role. The freedom for both poor and rich men to sleep under a bridge is nothing compared to the freedoms that comes from being guaranteed the necessities of life, the right to an education, the right to a home and under socialism, the right to participate as in economic life as a democratic individual. All these are the lower-level foundation upon which we become far more free than in their absence. To not be held back (the negative side of liberty) you must have the means to go forward (the positive side of liberty). Just to illustrate, in case the point didn't get across, why should anyone give a shit about the right to property if there was nothing to ever guarantee the ability to hold property in the first place?

And let's just look at what you said once more. Do you not see how destructive to freedom it would be if individuals were allowed to sell themselves into slavery, to do indentured servitude? Do you really think that, historically, the people doing this were truly doing so "willingly"? I hope not, because that would be ridiculous; it would mean you totally ignore the forceful nature that lead to this act being a "consensual" exchange. To say what I said before, in other words, the conditions of the contract/exchange/trade do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in the real world; a fact libertarians ignore at their own peril.

Under misery? Material luxuries for the working class would not exist if that were true.

I think you missed the "or" in that sentence. In any case, the reason working conditions are even mildly tolerable (and let's not pretend they even are that all the time here in the West) is because of social movements that have called for their improvement or because the people in charge had the foresight to see the coming working class rebellions or just had the tiniest bit of humanity (how nice of them to relinquish the tiniest bit of privilege!).

Under threat of starvation? That is the state of nature, and is reasonable for as long as scarcity exists. It's fair to work in order to survive. It is unfair to expect others to provide for you without offering anything in return.

It's not like Lenin disagrees with you.

You misunderstand, though. The point is that you don't really set the terms of your contract freely, in some abstract way, you do it because of the actual conditions of your material existence. You work for the capitalist or you don't: it's a choice, but not really a free one. They are forced by necessity to engage in an exploitative relationship. It's free in the same way as someone pointing a gun at you and saying that you're free to choose to kowtow or not.

Does scarcity place an obligation upon some people to work? Yes, and I made that same point earlier to the other guy, but you have all your work ahead of you to explain why this means they must engage in the wage contract, which is not an exchange of equal bargaining power. The relationship between worker and capitalist is only free in the sense that the worker "made a choice" to work for the capitalist, but it is a choice made under duress. This is one problem I have with you libertarians: your undue emphasis on contracts of all kinds without ever considering the conditions that lead people to agree to contracts in the first place. As long as you sign it, it means you're a free person, apparently. You hold very little concern for actual, substantial freedom.

Let's consider then, the hypothetical of socialism. Do people have to work to eat, as Lenin posits? Let's grant that. In that case, they are made to work, but as individuals in a classless, participatory democracy where they have much more say than under capitalism. It's analogous to "No Taxation Without Representation". In that case, what you're doing is similar to the one complaining that taxation is necessary, while missing the point entirely; freedom means you get to take part in the decision of how we must deal with such necessities.

You have no right to things which must be provided by others, that is a privilege.

In which case, you have no right to hold title over property. Property rights are first and foremost positive rights, a creature of the state.

I also have no problem with voluntary indentured servitude, but slavery is permanent and offers no chance of ending a contract that was formerly voluntary.

Lol. Mask off.

You're faced with the same problem as in all the other cases: you must consider whether such a "voluntary" action is actually voluntary at all or if it is necessitated by the conditions of that person's life. Better to avoid indentured servitude altogether, because it's really just another form of forced labor that is destructive to liberty.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Property and contract are good and also require a stable political order--it does not follow from that you should prefer a socialist regime seeking the abolition of both

[Duvniask]

This is all-around a bad argument, and the mental gymnastics necessary to come up with it must've been something to behold. You will get nowhere with this kind of reasoning.

There has never been a society where the procurement of food, in whatever form, wasn't necessary. A society does not function without food for its members, and whenever you have a society where even a single individual is not spending their time procuring food, it becomes necessary for the others to supply them with said food; otherwise they will starve and die. In practice, unless you want nothing more than complete subsistence, this is always necessary. In our time, no one is forcing people to produce food, yet people do it anyway for various reasons. If there was a right to food it would obligate society to provide it, but that doesn't mean people have to be made serfs to do so; people can enter into this line of work and be compensated for it in the same way as any other line of work. I mean for fuck sake, this is like saying that the right to have a lawyer in court means we must enslave people to become lawyers or the right to see a doctor means we have to force people to go to medical school; it doesn't work like that. Get our of your libertarian ivory tower and take a look at the real world.

Second: your denigration of positive rights entirely undermines your own position. The property regimes necessary to maintain any capitalist society are positive rights. The enforcement of contracts, the legal recognition to hold property comes from the state. Your property doesn't exist in nature, in the Hobbesian free-for-all, where anyone stronger than you can lay claim to whatever you own and take it away, at which point there is nothing you can do about it. You having any legal right to property places obligations on society too. All rights (that I can think of at the top of my head) have both positive and negative aspects. The right to life is just as much as right to keep living (if possible) as it is a right to not be killed. Even an imaginary negative right like "freedom from death" places positive obligations upon others to keep you alive. The right to own property is first and foremost a positive one, because property doesn't meaningfully exist in the state of nature. Unless your ilk recognizes this fact, you will continue to be a laughing stock.


Capitalism does not permit individuals to set the terms of economic trade however they wish, either. It is always limited by the conditions of the trade. All too often, the capitalist's freedom is the freedom to live under misery and starvation or become a proletarian if you aren't one of the lucky few. Most are forced by necessity into selling their labor power to others, in order that they gain the necessities of life. To call this "freedom" is farcical, because whatever you "wish" for is conditioned by your material circumstances, and can easily lead to you willingly engaging in exploitative relationships.

The difference is that, rather than adhere to abstraction, the socialist conception of freedom is concerned with enabling individuals the fulfillment of their person, with both positive and negative liberties playing a role. The freedom for both poor and rich men to sleep under a bridge is nothing compared to the freedoms that comes from being guaranteed the necessities of life, the right to an education, the right to a home and under socialism, the right to participate as in economic life as a democratic individual. All these are the lower-level foundation upon which we become far more free than in their absence. To not be held back (the negative side of liberty) you must have the means to go forward (the positive side of liberty). Just to illustrate, in case the point didn't get across, why should anyone give a shit about the right to property if there was nothing to ever guarantee the ability to hold property in the first place?

And let's just look at what you said once more. Do you not see how destructive to freedom it would be if individuals were allowed to sell themselves into slavery, to do indentured servitude? Do you really think that, historically, the people doing this were truly doing so "willingly"? I hope not, because that would be ridiculous; it would mean you totally ignore the forceful nature that lead to this act being a "consensual" exchange. To say what I said before, in other words, the conditions of the contract/exchange/trade do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in the real world; a fact libertarians ignore at their own peril.

The one place I totally agree with you is that the right to property is a purely positive one, and not one found in nature and that most rights, if not all, are partly positive ones.

The difference, to me, is the voluntary nature of the positive aspects of the rights. If I grow food under capitalism, I choose who to trade it to and under what terms. Under socialism, my food is being taken under terms set by the government or the collective. That, to me, makes capitalism a more free system than socialism.

I find this argument lacking, too. I think it fails to account for the bigger picture as well as how we interpret "freedom" in practice.

Food is a necessity of life. I don't think it should be monopolized by any group of people to do with as they wish; it should be a concern of all society. Consider this: your right to choose to dispose of food however you wish is, from the point of view of other people, a limitation on their right to food. Is your "freedom" to throw food out the window really more important than the (foundational) freedoms that are acquired by individuals that don't go hungry? In your case, it is a matter of economic gain to decide how your food is dispersed, in their case it is a matter of life itself. One right surely takes precedence over the other, which is not to say that they're necessarily mutually exclusive (real life it's more complicated than that).

And even setting that aside, how you dispose of your food under capitalism is not an unrestricted choice. Suppose you're a farmer that makes his living off of growing and selling that food: you have to sell it at a price the market will accept or other farms will conceivably take your place. You have to sell it in whatever way is necessary to make your living. Sure, you might still make a lot of money, but is that really the case nowadays? I'm not too knowledgeable about the farming sector, but I was under the impression that they're struggling somewhat, at least that's what I hear anecdotally. It would make sense, considering the subsidies that many farms receive.

Consider also this argument, but in the case of education. The state can reasonably be expected to set standards on what kids should learn in school, in order that they grow up to be educated citizens, or at the very least (if you're a cynic) citizens that are able to function in society on some level. You're gonna tell me we're less free as a society because teachers are supposed to have standards and because they have to teach relatively close to, well, everyone? I don't think so. The liberties that come from being an educated member of society are far more important than whatever whims certain teachers might have. Kids should not be taught nonsense or be left out, in any case, just as people should not be arbitrarily deprived of food or forced to eat food that is harmful.

---

The fundamental take-away from all of this is that a certain modicum of security is the foundation that enables more advanced forms of freedom that enable the individual to fulfill themselves as a human being. If you've ever heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it might be a useful visual aid. The foundation is more or less necessary for whatever is above and beyond it. A guarantee of physiological and safety needs enables a person to freely pursue the higher levels of their needs as a human being. In the aggregate, the people that result are more free than those who are but slaves to their base needs.

[Elwher]

I find this argument lacking, too. I think it fails to account for the bigger picture as well as how we interpret "freedom" in practice.

Food is a necessity of life. I don't think it should be monopolized by any group of people to do with as they wish; it should be a concern of all society. Consider this: your right to choose to dispose of food however you wish is, from the point of view of other people, a limitation on their right to food. Is your "freedom" to throw food out the window really more important than the (foundational) freedoms that are acquired by individuals that don't go hungry? In your case, it is a matter of economic gain to decide how your food is dispersed, in their case it is a matter of life itself. One right surely takes precedence over the other, which is not to say that they're necessarily mutually exclusive (real life it's more complicated than that).

And even setting that aside, how you dispose of your food under capitalism is not an unrestricted choice. Suppose you're a farmer that makes his living off of growing and selling that food: you have to sell it at a price the market will accept or other farms will conceivably take your place. You have to sell it in whatever way is necessary to make your living. Sure, you might still make a lot of money, but is that really the case nowadays? I'm not too knowledgeable about the farming sector, but I was under the impression that they're struggling somewhat, at least that's what I hear anecdotally. It would make sense, considering the subsidies that many farms receive.

Consider also this argument, but in the case of education. The state can reasonably be expected to set standards on what kids should learn in school, in order that they grow up to be educated citizens, or at the very least (if you're a cynic) citizens that are able to function in society on some level. You're gonna tell me we're less free as a society because teachers are supposed to have standards and because they have to teach relatively close to, well, everyone? I don't think so. The liberties that come from being an educated member of society are far more important than whatever whims certain teachers might have. Kids should not be taught nonsense or be left out, in any case, just as people should not be arbitrarily deprived of food or forced to eat food that is harmful.

---

The fundamental take-away from all of this is that a certain modicum of security is the foundation that enables more advanced forms of freedom that enable the individual to fulfill themselves as a human being. If you've ever heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it might be a useful visual aid. The foundation is more or less necessary for whatever is above and beyond it. A guarantee of physiological and safety needs enables a person to freely pursue the higher levels of their needs as a human being. In the aggregate, the people that result are more free than those who are but slaves to their base needs.

While it may sound harsh, yes. I worked to produce that food, I have the right to eat it, sell it, give it away, or dispose of it in any way that suits me. Food is not monopolized, anyone can go out and hunt for their food, and as a farmer or rancher I have no ability to stop them.

I have no problem with the setting of standards in either education or food production, students should not be taught nonsense nor should consumers be fed poison. We do not force teachers to teach for no pay or to accept any pay the authorities set; they are free to sell their knowledge elsewhere or to not teach at all. Likewise, we should not be allowed to force a farmer to give away his product nor to take whatever level of compensation the authorities may set, they should be free to withhold their product until they agree to the payment received.

I have studied Maslow in many courses, and I understand that in order to reach the higher needs the lower must be fulfilled. It does not necessarily follow, however, that one person is responsible for enabling another to do so. As an individual, I may well choose to help out those less well off than myself. That should remain my choice, not my legal obligation.

[Duvniask]

I find this argument lacking, too. I think it fails to account for the bigger picture as well as how we interpret "freedom" in practice.

Food is a necessity of life. I don't think it should be monopolized by any group of people to do with as they wish; it should be a concern of all society. Consider this: your right to choose to dispose of food however you wish is, from the point of view of other people, a limitation on their right to food. Is your "freedom" to throw food out the window really more important than the (foundational) freedoms that are acquired by individuals that don't go hungry? In your case, it is a matter of economic gain to decide how your food is dispersed, in their case it is a matter of life itself. One right surely takes precedence over the other, which is not to say that they're necessarily mutually exclusive (real life it's more complicated than that).

And even setting that aside, how you dispose of your food under capitalism is not an unrestricted choice. Suppose you're a farmer that makes his living off of growing and selling that food: you have to sell it at a price the market will accept or other farms will conceivably take your place. You have to sell it in whatever way is necessary to make your living. Sure, you might still make a lot of money, but is that really the case nowadays? I'm not too knowledgeable about the farming sector, but I was under the impression that they're struggling somewhat, at least that's what I hear anecdotally. It would make sense, considering the subsidies that many farms receive.

Consider also this argument, but in the case of education. The state can reasonably be expected to set standards on what kids should learn in school, in order that they grow up to be educated citizens, or at the very least (if you're a cynic) citizens that are able to function in society on some level. You're gonna tell me we're less free as a society because teachers are supposed to have standards and because they have to teach relatively close to, well, everyone? I don't think so. The liberties that come from being an educated member of society are far more important than whatever whims certain teachers might have. Kids should not be taught nonsense or be left out, in any case, just as people should not be arbitrarily deprived of food or forced to eat food that is harmful.

---

The fundamental take-away from all of this is that a certain modicum of security is the foundation that enables more advanced forms of freedom that enable the individual to fulfill themselves as a human being. If you've ever heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it might be a useful visual aid. The foundation is more or less necessary for whatever is above and beyond it. A guarantee of physiological and safety needs enables a person to freely pursue the higher levels of their needs as a human being. In the aggregate, the people that result are more free than those who are but slaves to their base needs.

While it may sound harsh, yes. I worked to produce that food, I have the right to eat it, sell it, give it away, or dispose of it in any way that suits me. Food is not monopolized, anyone can go out and hunt for their food, and as a farmer or rancher I have no ability to stop them.

Yeah, we're not gonna sustain billions of hunter gatherers. In modern societies, food is produced by increasingly few people, at least relatively speaking.

I have no problem with the setting of standards in either education or food production, students should not be taught nonsense nor should consumers be fed poison. We do not force teachers to teach for no pay or to accept any pay the authorities set; they are free to sell their knowledge elsewhere or to not teach at all. Likewise, we should not be allowed to force a farmer to give away his product nor to take whatever level of compensation the authorities may set, they should be free to withhold their product until they agree to the payment received.

In practice you are more or less required to accept whatever compensation you will get. Teachers basically work for whatever their determined value is, be it by the market or the government. Any rational actor is unwilling to pay them more than this, unless they engage in collective bargaining to raise their level of compensation or similar "disruptive" tactics. That is to say nothing of working conditions. The wage contract is fundamentally an exchange between parties of unequal bargaining power, so negotiations favor the employer, unless there's a labor shortage or organized labor is strong (which is the intention of socialist parties everywhere).

Under socialism, wherever scarcity persists, the principle of "to each according to his contribution" prevails. To quote the old man, "The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another." You work so and so many hours and you receive back in accordance with that. Add a coefficient, or what have you, for the intensity of the work and your productivity (that is at least one proposal of how such a system would function). Give and ye shall receive. You can make the argument that this system is more restrictive. Formally, that might be so, but in practice, I'm not sure there's much difference in that respect. You can choose not to be a teacher or a farmer, you aren't being forced to, but you have to choose something to make any gain, and the socially decided form of compensation sets the limits for what you can expect. Also, this is just in terms of compensation; a classless society is arguably freer in its entirety, a point which I must stress per the argument that some freedoms are more important than others.

I have studied Maslow in many courses, and I understand that in order to reach the higher needs the lower must be fulfilled. It does not necessarily follow, however, that one person is responsible for enabling another to do so. As an individual, I may well choose to help out those less well off than myself. That should remain my choice, not my legal obligation.

We were talking about freedom, though, and as my argument has been this entire time, you must empower people with a modicum of security for them to be free. That is not to mention the fact that I also consider this to be the just way of going about things.

[Zurkerx]

Any word on any major Libertarian Candidates running yet? Do we still have that same meme-making crop out there?

God damn I do hope Amash runs.

Edit: Lincoln Chafee, ex-GOP senator and Democratic governor, is running for president as a Libertarian

Well, I guess I'll take that though I do have my concerns.

[Elwher]

In practice you are more or less required to accept whatever compensation you will get. Teachers basically work for whatever their determined value is, be it by the market or the government. Any rational actor is unwilling to pay them more than this, unless they engage in collective bargaining to raise their level of compensation or similar "disruptive" tactics. That is to say nothing of working conditions. The wage contract is fundamentally an exchange between parties of unequal bargaining power, so negotiations favor the employer, unless there's a labor shortage or organized labor is strong (which is the intention of socialist parties everywhere).

I keep hearing that argument, and if my skill set is pushing a broom it may well be true. As a computer programmer, I went into contract negotiations with a vastly different mindset; if the employer was not willing to pay what I felt my services were worth, someone else would and I would walk. I left jobs that were not willing to keep up their pay to my contributions, and turned down many for the same reason. A good teacher can make more at a private school, for example, than at a public one, without any disruptive tactics. If you want more money, become better at what you do and demand it.

[Duvniask]

In practice you are more or less required to accept whatever compensation you will get. Teachers basically work for whatever their determined value is, be it by the market or the government. Any rational actor is unwilling to pay them more than this, unless they engage in collective bargaining to raise their level of compensation or similar "disruptive" tactics. That is to say nothing of working conditions. The wage contract is fundamentally an exchange between parties of unequal bargaining power, so negotiations favor the employer, unless there's a labor shortage or organized labor is strong (which is the intention of socialist parties everywhere).

I keep hearing that argument, and if my skill set is pushing a broom it may well be true. As a computer programmer, I went into contract negotiations with a vastly different mindset; if the employer was not willing to pay what I felt my services were worth, someone else would and I would walk. I left jobs that were not willing to keep up their pay to my contributions, and turned down many for the same reason.

I feel like you must be fairly well-off if you've resigned, switched or turned away as many job offers as you imply. The freedom that you personally have in this matter derives from whatever such security you have to back you up. I doubt that many people are this lucky.

A good teacher can make more at a private school, for example, than at a public one, without any disruptive tactics.

It's not like I'm against paying public teachers more, though. In any sector, there's a standard level of compensation; in this case it happens to higher in the private sector than in the public sector (not surprising, considering the willingness to "starve the beast").

Such a standard level of compensation happens to be evened out under socialism and is, more fairly, tied directly to your input, in terms of the time and intensity spent on your work. So because you're not going to get anywhere by demanding that you get twice as much as the next guy for no reason this somehow makes socialism an unfree system? Not any more than capitalism. Under socialism, if you're dissatisfied with the condition of your work, then it's a good thing you live in a classless society of economic democracy where you're free to correspond with your fellow workers and change things in whatever way is realistically achievable. Speaking of capitalism being "more free" only in terms of the employment contract is all in all a limited perspective anyway.

If you want more money, become better at what you do and demand it.

Oh, believe me, demanding better pay, labor rights, etc. is what socialists have been doing pretty much from the beginning.

[Northern Davincia]

Under misery? Material luxuries for the working class would not exist if that were true.

I think you missed the "or" in that sentence. 1. In any case, the reason working conditions are even mildly tolerable (and let's not pretend they even are that all the time here in the West) is because of social movements that have called for their improvement or because the people in charge had the foresight to see the coming working class rebellions or just had the tiniest bit of humanity (how nice of them to relinquish the tiniest bit of privilege!).

Under threat of starvation? That is the state of nature, and is reasonable for as long as scarcity exists. It's fair to work in order to survive. It is unfair to expect others to provide for you without offering anything in return.

It's not like Lenin disagrees with you.

You misunderstand, though. The point is that you don't really set the terms of your contract freely, in some abstract way, you do it because of the actual conditions of your material existence. You work for the capitalist or you don't: it's a choice, but not really a free one. They are forced by necessity to engage in an exploitative relationship. 2. It's free in the same way as someone pointing a gun at you and saying that you're free to choose to kowtow or not.

Does scarcity place an obligation upon some people to work? 3. Yes, and I made that same point earlier to the other guy, but you have all your work ahead of you to explain why this means they must engage in the wage contract, which is not an exchange of equal bargaining power. The relationship between worker and capitalist is only free in the sense that the worker "made a choice" to work for the capitalist, but it is a choice made under duress. This is one problem I have with you libertarians: your undue emphasis on contracts of all kinds without ever considering the conditions that lead people to agree to contracts in the first place. As long as you sign it, it means you're a free person, apparently. You hold very little concern for actual, substantial freedom.

Let's consider then, the hypothetical of socialism. Do people have to work to eat, as Lenin posits? Let's grant that. 4. In that case, they are made to work, but as individuals in a classless, participatory democracy where they have much more say than under capitalism. It's analogous to "No Taxation Without Representation". In that case, what you're doing is similar to the one complaining that taxation is necessary, while missing the point entirely; 5. freedom means you get to take part in the decision of how we must deal with such necessities.

You have no right to things which must be provided by others, that is a privilege.

6. In which case, you have no right to hold title over property. Property rights are first and foremost positive rights, a creature of the state.

I also have no problem with voluntary indentured servitude, but slavery is permanent and offers no chance of ending a contract that was formerly voluntary.

7. Lol. Mask off.

You're faced with the same problem as in all the other cases: you must consider whether such a "voluntary" action is actually voluntary at all or if it is necessitated by the conditions of that person's life. Better to avoid indentured servitude altogether, because it's really just another form of forced labor that is destructive to liberty.

1. The working class is not living with the bare minimum of comforts, as luxuries are constantly expanding and improving, not to mention getting cheaper. It's not relinquishing anything, it's active catering.
2. Not really. If your analogy had any weight, the capitalist class would not need to provide anything to me in return for labor. Rather than it being exploitative, working in exchange for quality of life is incentive-based. I have an incentive to work for them and by choosing not to, I would not lose anything that I was not entitled to.
3. It does not need to be an equal bargaining relationship. No bargaining relationship is truly equal, unless we're talking about bartering.
4. The diversification of labor seems to necessitate classes. The inherent inequality of all men makes me skeptical of full participatory democracy, especially in every workplace.
5. Not everyone should have a say. I would rather have one boss that acts wisely than every coworker that acts foolishly.
6. Property rights have always been a matter of force. A cave is my property as long as I can throw spears at anyone who comes too close, it makes no difference if the state is the one throwing spears now.
7. To prevent indentured servitude is to limit choice. This is a matter of consistency, not worthless stock phrases. A child of an alcoholic is inclined to alcoholism, yet I would not stop them from drinking on account of such conditions.

[Duvniask]

I think you missed the "or" in that sentence. 1. In any case, the reason working conditions are even mildly tolerable (and let's not pretend they even are that all the time here in the West) is because of social movements that have called for their improvement or because the people in charge had the foresight to see the coming working class rebellions or just had the tiniest bit of humanity (how nice of them to relinquish the tiniest bit of privilege!).


It's not like Lenin disagrees with you.

You misunderstand, though. The point is that you don't really set the terms of your contract freely, in some abstract way, you do it because of the actual conditions of your material existence. You work for the capitalist or you don't: it's a choice, but not really a free one. They are forced by necessity to engage in an exploitative relationship. 2. It's free in the same way as someone pointing a gun at you and saying that you're free to choose to kowtow or not.

Does scarcity place an obligation upon some people to work? 3. Yes, and I made that same point earlier to the other guy, but you have all your work ahead of you to explain why this means they must engage in the wage contract, which is not an exchange of equal bargaining power. The relationship between worker and capitalist is only free in the sense that the worker "made a choice" to work for the capitalist, but it is a choice made under duress. This is one problem I have with you libertarians: your undue emphasis on contracts of all kinds without ever considering the conditions that lead people to agree to contracts in the first place. As long as you sign it, it means you're a free person, apparently. You hold very little concern for actual, substantial freedom.

Let's consider then, the hypothetical of socialism. Do people have to work to eat, as Lenin posits? Let's grant that. 4. In that case, they are made to work, but as individuals in a classless, participatory democracy where they have much more say than under capitalism. It's analogous to "No Taxation Without Representation". In that case, what you're doing is similar to the one complaining that taxation is necessary, while missing the point entirely; 5. freedom means you get to take part in the decision of how we must deal with such necessities.


6. In which case, you have no right to hold title over property. Property rights are first and foremost positive rights, a creature of the state.


7. Lol. Mask off.

You're faced with the same problem as in all the other cases: you must consider whether such a "voluntary" action is actually voluntary at all or if it is necessitated by the conditions of that person's life. Better to avoid indentured servitude altogether, because it's really just another form of forced labor that is destructive to liberty.

1. The working class is not living with the bare minimum of comforts, as luxuries are constantly expanding and improving, not to mention getting cheaper. It's not relinquishing anything, it's active catering.

I'm not even sure what you're saying at this point.

Unless you're one of the lucky few, you have to work for capitalists to gain access to any such luxuries. If you're unemployed and barely scraping by, you aren't living the high life, buddy. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Those luxuries are earned via work, yes, but it is exploitative work, and you don't really have much of a choice in terms of wanting to do it or not.

2. Not really. If your analogy had any weight, the capitalist class would not need to provide anything to me in return for labor. Rather than it being exploitative, working in exchange for quality of life is incentive-based. I have an incentive to work for them and by choosing not to, I would not lose anything that I was not entitled to.

"I'll pay you only if you suck my dick"
"Wtf, you're just exploiting my need for money to gain sexual favors!"
"You have an incentive to suck my dick. It's incentive-based, so I'll even pay you better if you do it well. By choosing not to suck my dick you're not losing anything that's rightfully yours anyway."

You see how unhelpful this line of reasoning is? OF COURSE you can be exploiting someone while still giving them incentives to work for you. It is precisely the incentive that makes exploitation that much more successful. People wouldn't work for others if they got absolutely nothing out of it. Even a slave master has to feed his slaves and keep them alive, otherwise they can't keep working for him (they will die). The whip with which he strikes the slave is another incentive - pain; "if ya want the pain to stop, best pick up the pace!". The most important difference is that the worker has some semblance of rights and gets to choose his master; but he must choose a master, lest he wants to starve. It has been my contention so far that we should do away with such master-servant relationships, even if the present-day form, thank goodness, is milder version of it.

3. It does not need to be an equal bargaining relationship. No bargaining relationship is truly equal, unless we're talking about bartering.

It's a relationship that shouldn't exist in the first place, and the gross inequality of it, along with the way it is systematically used to extract undue labor from others, is what makes it exploitative.

4. The diversification of labor seems to necessitate classes. The inherent inequality of all men makes me skeptical of full participatory democracy, especially in every workplace.

Cooperatives, while still capitalist by their very nature, show that an egalitarian economy is far from impossible. You don't need people to be equal in all respects for it to work; besides, equality is a vague political goal.

5. Not everyone should have a say. I would rather have one boss that acts wisely than every coworker that acts foolishly.

And when you have one boss that acts foolishly, you're all fucked.

6. Property rights have always been a matter of force. A cave is my property as long as I can throw spears at anyone who comes too close, it makes no difference if the state is the one throwing spears now.

And if I or someone else happened to murder you or kick your out of that cave, it's now ours. It's not property in any meaningful sense, and certainly not something where your "right to it" means anything, for who is to determine that it was rightfully yours in the first place in absence of any state with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force? It's more like simple possession. There's no legality to your ownership of the cave, nothing to back it up except whatever personal strength you yourself can muster.

Furthermore, if you admit property only exists with the use of force, then it must also follow that property rights are positive rights, because they place obligations on others (society) to help maintain the rightful ownership of said property (with force), especially if you can't defend it only by yourself.

7. To prevent indentured servitude is to limit choice. This is a matter of consistency, not worthless stock phrases. A child of an alcoholic is inclined to alcoholism, yet I would not stop them from drinking on account of such conditions.

It's only being consistent because your ideology is crap. I mean, it's to limit a "choice" about limiting your own choices. Indentured servitude is basically slavery, and more specifically a form of debt slavery. Allowing people to enter into such temporary slavery is destructive to liberty for essentially the same reasons that wage work is destructive to liberty.

But leave it to the libertarians to argue for the legality of indentured servitude.

[Elwher]

I keep hearing that argument, and if my skill set is pushing a broom it may well be true. As a computer programmer, I went into contract negotiations with a vastly different mindset; if the employer was not willing to pay what I felt my services were worth, someone else would and I would walk. I left jobs that were not willing to keep up their pay to my contributions, and turned down many for the same reason.

I feel like you must be fairly well-off if you've resigned, switched or turned away as many job offers as you imply. The freedom that you personally have in this matter derives from whatever such security you have to back you up. I doubt that many people are this lucky.

Not that well off, but at the risk of bragging, I was one of the better COBOL programmers in my area before my retirement. My security derived from my ability to perform a necessary task better than the next person.

If you want more money, become better at what you do and demand it.

Oh, believe me, demanding better pay, labor rights, etc. is what socialists have been doing pretty much from the beginning.

You seem to have missed the first part of my suggestion. Just demanding more money is insufficient, you must show that you are worth more by increasing the value of what you will give. This is one of the problems with many socialist concepts, increased skills are not rewarded in any significant fashion.