Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Kowani]

Or they live in reality.

No, they live in a dystopian world, where the people in power make their subjects choose between living a well off life and living a free life.

Yes, this is the world we live in. Liberty and well-being have been opposed for a while, ever since the state got around to realizing that its job was upholding well-being. Once that shift happened, liberty was lost.

In reality, the two are not only compatible but more often, mutually necessary for each other.

Not long-term.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Yes, this is the world we live in. Liberty and well-being have been opposed for a while, ever since the state got around to realizing that its job was upholding well-being. Once that shift happened, liberty was lost.

You say that as if the state is always benevolent. You speak as if the state is the only thing that can ensure wellbeing. And finally, you speak as if the state ensuring wellbeing necessarily destroys liberty.

[The Liberated Territories]

Why should I take you seriously Kowani when you openly admit you want to enslave people to the will of the state? Do you think someone locked up in prison, fully fed, clothed, and safe, is in a better position than a person outside of prison with none of those advantages?

I hear the fascists are recruiting. Social democracy is similar to fascism, in which both see the supremacy of the state as absolute.

[Kowani]

Yes, this is the world we live in. Liberty and well-being have been opposed for a while, ever since the state got around to realizing that its job was upholding well-being. Once that shift happened, liberty was lost.

You say that as if the state is always benevolent.

I very clearly did not. I said “once the state got around to realizing...” Ergo, there was a time when it was not-thus, the State was not always benevolent.

You speak as if the state is the only thing that can ensure wellbeing.

I mean, for certain things, yeah. Healthcare, pollution, safety standards, universalism of needs-these have to be entrusted to the state, because the market can’t do it. It runs counter to its own internal rules.

And finally, you speak as if the state ensuring wellbeing necessarily destroys liberty.

Yes, this is called looking at empirical evidence.
At the very least, Liberty from a libertarian perspective.

Why should I take you seriously Kowani when you openly admit you want to enslave people to the will of the state?

It is very telling that the argument is not “why is this bad”, but rather “this is bad, therefore your positions are nonsense.

Do you think someone locked up in prison, fully fed, clothed, and safe, is in a better position than a person outside of prison with none of those advantages?

I mean, yeah? That’s the thing about liberty- liberty to do is pointless on its own.

I hear the fascists are recruiting. Social democracy is similar to fascism, in which both see the supremacy of the state as absolute.

Social democracy wants to reform the capitalist system, not ensure the Supremacy of the state. Try again.

[Great Minarchistan]

takes such as social democracy ~~ fascism is precisely the reason why i dont take you or 70% of the users on this thread seriously, tlt

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I very clearly did not. I said “once the state got around to realizing...” Ergo, there was a time when it was not-thus, the State was not always benevolent.

But you speak as if the state is benevolent now. Which it isn't.

I mean, for certain things, yeah. Healthcare, pollution, safety standards, universalism of needs-these have to be entrusted to the state, because the market can’t do it. It runs counter to its own internal rules.

All of those things have been provided by non-government entities at equal or better standards than the government. Even then, government funded healthcare and government safety & environmental standards don't exactly destroy freedom. It's not like supporting a cent spent on healthcare makes you a Stalinist.

Yes, this is called looking at empirical evidence.
At the very least, Liberty from a libertarian perspective.

I'm not sure what evidence you're referring to. Could you give an example?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I hear the fascists are recruiting. Social democracy is similar to fascism, in which both see the supremacy of the state as absolute.

I gotta disagree with you here. Kowani is not a Social Democrat. And Social Democrats don't really see the supremacy of the state as absolute. Socdems and Fascists have essentially nothing necessarily in common other than wanting to allow private property, but have it be heavily regulated and binded by the state.

[Kowani]

I very clearly did not. I said “once the state got around to realizing...” Ergo, there was a time when it was not-thus, the State was not always benevolent.

But you speak as if the state is benevolent now. Which it isn't.

Some are, some aren’t. I fail to see your point.

I mean, for certain things, yeah. Healthcare, pollution, safety standards, universalism of needs-these have to be entrusted to the state, because the market can’t do it. It runs counter to its own internal rules.

All of those things have been provided by non-government entities at equal or better standards than the government. [/quote] This is ahistorical nonsense.

Even then, government funded healthcare and government safety & environmental standards don't exactly destroy freedom. It's not like supporting a cent spent on healthcare makes you a Stalinist.

By the typical libertarian standards of freedom from and freedom to, they do.

Yes, this is called looking at empirical evidence.
At the very least, Liberty from a libertarian perspective.

I'm not sure what evidence you're referring to. Could you give an example?

A question, of you will. Where exactly has the state guaranteed both well-being without cutting into liberty?

[Neu California]

.

I mean, for certain things, yeah. Healthcare, pollution, safety standards, universalism of needs-these have to be entrusted to the state, because the market can’t do it. It runs counter to its own internal rules.

All of those things have been provided by non-government entities at equal or better standards than the government. Even then, government funded healthcare and government safety & environmental standards don't exactly destroy freedom. It's not like supporting a cent spent on healthcare makes you a Stalinist.

[Citation needed]

Also, were they provided at similar cost to the government?

[Great Minarchistan]

nb that just because something is provided by the govt it doesnt mean that the govt is behind the entire structure of goods/services it offers, ie. SNAP doesnt own food supermarkets and medicaid doesnt own hospitals

[Kowani]

nb that just because something is provided by the govt it doesnt mean that the govt is behind the entire structure of goods/services it offers, ie. SNAP doesnt own food supermarkets

No, but the government is responsible for the roads that transport the food, the police that protect them from theft, the currency for which they are exchanged, the standards by which the food is measured, the address system of directions, the GPS by which the roads are navigated,

and medicaid doesnt own hospitals

-Laughs in NHS-

[Great Minarchistan]

nb that just because something is provided by the govt it doesnt mean that the govt is behind the entire structure of goods/services it offers, ie. SNAP doesnt own food supermarkets

No, but the government is responsible for the roads that transport the food, the police that protect them from theft, the currency for which they are exchanged, the standards by which the food is measured, the address system of directions, the GPS by which the roads are navigated,

and medicaid doesnt own hospitals

-Laughs in NHS-

well yes public goods eg. roads are a thing

[Taihei Tengoku]

The NHS isn't even a good defense of soc demism. Its best part is the death panels

[Neu California]

The NHS isn't even a good defense of soc demism. Its best part is the death panels

The nhs has death panels?

[Citation needed]

[Taihei Tengoku]

The NHS isn't even a good defense of soc demism. Its best part is the death panels

The nhs has death panels?

[Citation needed]

NHS overtly rations. Almost the entire outrage over Palin's "death panel" comment was that she 1) made an entirely true comment 2) did it in a way that an apologia would have short circuited shitlib centrism. Even Canada has an "ethicist" that appears when people are beyond fixing.

[Neu California]

The nhs has death panels?

[Citation needed]

NHS overtly rations. Almost the entire outrage over Palin's "death panel" comment was that she 1) made an entirely true comment 2) did it in a way that an apologia would have short circuited shitlib centrism. Even Canada has an "ethicist" that appears when people are beyond fixing.

Palin's comment was true?

Okay, then, prove all the media calling her misinformed or a liar wrong. Show us where in the original legislation the "death panels" as she described them were included.

I'll tackle the rest tomorrow if someone else doesn't, as I'm going to sleep soonish. I will say, fhough, that rationing based on need of care is a hell of a lot better than rationing based on ability to pay (and sending people into medical bankruptcy)

[Kowani]

The nhs has death panels?

[Citation needed]

NHS overtly rations. Almost the entire outrage over Palin's "death panel" comment was that she 1) made an entirely true comment 2) did it in a way that an apologia would have short circuited shitlib centrism. Even Canada has an "ethicist" that appears when people are beyond fixing.

You could’ve actually read your own article. “The treatments affected include hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery to help restore sight as well as drugs for conditions such as arthritis.”

You are not going to die of arthritis.

[Great Minarchistan]

The NHS isn't even a good defense of soc demism. Its best part is the death panels

based NHS rightfully enforcing population control of jobless and expensive-to-keep people (aka retirees)

[Elwher]

My entire philosophy can be summarized by this song.

Love the song; don't like the singer.

This one spells out mine well: https://youtu.be/jFi7bWkyRpA

[Genivaria]

The nhs has death panels?

[Citation needed]

NHS overtly rations. Almost the entire outrage over Palin's "death panel" comment was that she 1) made an entirely true comment 2) did it in a way that an apologia would have short circuited shitlib centrism. Even Canada has an "ethicist" that appears when people are beyond fixing.

That's basically just mislabeling triage.

[Genivaria]

I want to point out that Republicans have 'death panels' to, they're called insurance companies.

[Northern Davincia]

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.

Those who are not working are not entitled to luxury, so it is not an issue. An increasingly small number of people are fully blocked out from enjoying basic comforts.

"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.

Are you implying that some individuals' skills are limited solely to prostitution? The capitalist incentive is mutually beneficial, while the slave can never advance beyond keeping themselves alive if their master wishes so.
Ultimately, there is nothing stopping you from growing your own food, becoming self-employed, or joining a commune. There is nothing that makes you deserving of food for no work.

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.

There is no such thing as undue labor.

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

Equality is undesirable compared to meritocracy. Cooperatives have yet to compete with traditional businesses in any meaningful way, rendering an egalitarian economy small in scale.

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

This is less likely to occur when bosses rise through merit, as they do under capitalism.

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.

All rights are backed by force. I would not deny this because rights are not tangible things, and this applies to laws as well. However, property rights are not positive if I can defend my property myself or with hired help.
Society may agree to recognize each others' rights, but this does not mean that freedom of speech is a positive freedom because the state backs it.

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.

I would assume that no one becomes an indentured servant if the end result did not leave them better off than before, whether in being freed from debts or given an area of land. Libertarians are by no means against humane treatment of such workers.

[Great Minarchistan]

I want to point out that Republicans have 'death panels' to, they're called insurance companies.

wow yes the market feature of an insurance system is surely party-biased, thanks for your insightful input

[The Liberated Territories]

I want to point out that Republicans have 'death panels' to, they're called insurance companies.

wow yes the market feature of an insurance system is surely party-biased, thanks for your insightful input

Is it not, though? Insurance rates differ if you are younger or older, male or female, and so on.

[Genivaria]

I want to point out that Republicans have 'death panels' to, they're called insurance companies.

wow yes the market feature of an insurance system is surely party-biased, thanks for your insightful input

The Republicans seem to favor healthcare staying in the hands of insurance companies so yes.