Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[The American Free States]

Due to political compass memes, whenever I see anything that has the word Libertarian in it, I immediately think of Recreational McNukes, NAP, no steppy snek, and When Money Comes Marching Home.

[Byzconia]

And why is it "best"? Because businesses might have to actually treat their workers with dignity? Picking and choosing which oppression qualifies as "bad" means you don't actually think oppression is bad to begin with.

Mixing the public and private sphere lead to greater corporate involvement in government, generally. Not a good thing.

Interesting perspective. I'll admit I hadn't considered it at that angle before. That said, the alternatives aren't exactly "a good thing," either, and tbh I'm not entirely sure you can prevent it from happening anyway.

Theoretically, even under a laissez-faire system, corporations would still be heavily involved in what little government there is (because why shouldn't they? Who's going to stop them?). This is why I believe that laissez-faire economics will inevitably lead to corporate capitalism, as well as a general strangulation of the free market in monopolies/oligopolies/cartels. Even Adam Smith argued that government involvement in the economy was sometimes necessary, with monopolies being one of those times.

[Rojava Free State]

Mixing the public and private sphere lead to greater corporate involvement in government, generally. Not a good thing.

Interesting perspective. I'll admit I hadn't considered it at that angle before. That said, the alternatives aren't exactly "a good thing," either, and tbh I'm not entirely sure you can prevent it from happening anyway.

Theoretically, even under a laissez-faire system, corporations would still be heavily involved in what little government there is (because why shouldn't they? Who's going to stop them?). This is why I believe that laissez-faire economics will inevitably lead to corporate capitalism, as well as a general strangulation of the free market in monopolies/oligopolies/cartels. Even Adam Smith argued that government involvement in the economy was sometimes necessary, with monopolies being one of those times.

One big reason I'm not a fan of major corporations is because of their corruption of our government, which ought to serve the people. A free market is a normal and natural economic system but I'm more of a mom and pop shop guy, and less of a "business bribes government to look the other way while they pollute the entire country and exploit child slaves in Africa"

[Byzconia]

Interesting perspective. I'll admit I hadn't considered it at that angle before. That said, the alternatives aren't exactly "a good thing," either, and tbh I'm not entirely sure you can prevent it from happening anyway.

Theoretically, even under a laissez-faire system, corporations would still be heavily involved in what little government there is (because why shouldn't they? Who's going to stop them?). This is why I believe that laissez-faire economics will inevitably lead to corporate capitalism, as well as a general strangulation of the free market in monopolies/oligopolies/cartels. Even Adam Smith argued that government involvement in the economy was sometimes necessary, with monopolies being one of those times.

One big reason I'm not a fan of major corporations is because of their corruption of our government, which ought to serve the people. A free market is a normal and natural economic system but I'm more of a mom and pop shop guy, and less of a "business bribes government to look the other way while they pollute the entire country and exploit child slaves in Africa"

Understandable, but in a market environment many of those mom and pop shops will grow to be massive corporations, just look at Wal-Mart.

[Salus Maior]

Good for you. You turned out alright, but I think the existence of incels as a high profile group points out that not everyone does turn out that way.

And plenty of other people are exposed to porn young and don't turn out incels. It's almost as if different people are...different.

If this is something you're actually worried about, you should be supporting comprehensive sex education, so that porn isn't their first exposure to ideas of sex.

First of all, I reject the notion that one has to be compelled to support anything just because they oppose one thing.

Secondly, I already do.

[Salus Maior]

Good for you. You turned out alright, but I think the existence of incels as a high profile group points out that not everyone does turn out that way.

Bro there is a lot more wrong with incels then porn. It's a mix of them just not being cool guys, being attracted to the manosphere and living in a more atomized society

There's been incels forever man. I mean shit Sir Isaac Newton died a virgin. I'm blessed to not be one, and I must be good looking because up until recently my social skills with women were shit, and I still would only give myself a B or B+ with them now. Cassanova I am not, and my zombie laugh sure as fuck gets me no romance

I think it's fairly obvious that when I refer to "incels" I'm referring to the modern phenomenon of toxic anti-female behavior and propagated mental illness, and not some guy who died a virgin a hundred years ago.

And secondly, if you've ever read anything posted by incels, it smacks of porn obsession and misinformation.

[Byzconia]

And plenty of other people are exposed to porn young and don't turn out incels. It's almost as if different people are...different.

If this is something you're actually worried about, you should be supporting comprehensive sex education, so that porn isn't their first exposure to ideas of sex.

First of all, I reject the notion that one has to be compelled to support anything just because they oppose one thing.

Secondly, I already do.

I mean, when the "anything" is the best alternative...

But that's good to hear, regardless.

[The Liberated Territories]

Mixing the public and private sphere lead to greater corporate involvement in government, generally. Not a good thing.

Interesting perspective. I'll admit I hadn't considered it at that angle before. That said, the alternatives aren't exactly "a good thing," either, and tbh I'm not entirely sure you can prevent it from happening anyway.

Theoretically, even under a laissez-faire system, corporations would still be heavily involved in what little government there is (because why shouldn't they? Who's going to stop them?). This is why I believe that laissez-faire economics will inevitably lead to corporate capitalism, as well as a general strangulation of the free market in monopolies/oligopolies/cartels. Even Adam Smith argued that government involvement in the economy was sometimes necessary, with monopolies being one of those times.

The minimalist government would be mostly be limited to enforcing property rights. Corporations benefit from this equally. So why would they try to take over the government? If to limit property rights then I reckon they'd be opposed by all other corporations if they attempted that.

But the point is moot. A libertarian corporation wouldn't have the same legal framework, anyway. And as of Adam Smith's time most corporations were granted charters by the government in the first place, securing their monopoly.

One big reason I'm not a fan of major corporations is because of their corruption of our government, which ought to serve the people. A free market is a normal and natural economic system but I'm more of a mom and pop shop guy, and less of a "business bribes government to look the other way while they pollute the entire country and exploit child slaves in Africa"

Understandable, but in a market environment many of those mom and pop shops will grow to be massive corporations, just look at Wal-Mart.

If "many" will grow then it's not a monopoly. And you should know walmart was a huge beneficiary to this day of government intervention.

[Rojava Free State]

Bro there is a lot more wrong with incels then porn. It's a mix of them just not being cool guys, being attracted to the manosphere and living in a more atomized society

There's been incels forever man. I mean shit Sir Isaac Newton died a virgin. I'm blessed to not be one, and I must be good looking because up until recently my social skills with women were shit, and I still would only give myself a B or B+ with them now. Cassanova I am not, and my zombie laugh sure as fuck gets me no romance

I think it's fairly obvious that when I refer to "incels" I'm referring to the modern phenomenon of toxic anti-female behavior and propagated mental illness, and not some guy who died a virgin a hundred years ago.

And secondly, if you've ever read anything posted by incels, it smacks of porn obsession and misinformation.

That's because of the manosphere, which perpetuates the idea that all women are soulless monsters whom only go for "chads" and never for a man who is a 7 out of 10 in appearance or less

Porn didn't make them this way. A toxic mix of being uncool in highschool, an atomized society and misogyny did

[Proctopeo]

I think it's fairly obvious that when I refer to "incels" I'm referring to the modern phenomenon of toxic anti-female behavior and propagated mental illness, and not some guy who died a virgin a hundred years ago.

And secondly, if you've ever read anything posted by incels, it smacks of porn obsession and misinformation.

That's because of the manosphere, which perpetuates the idea that all women are soulless monsters whom only go for "chads" and never for a man who is a 7 out of 10 in appearance or less

Porn didn't make them this way. A toxic mix of being uncool in highschool, an atomized society and misogyny did

I'm curious, how do you personally define "the manosphere"?

[Salus Maior]

I think it's fairly obvious that when I refer to "incels" I'm referring to the modern phenomenon of toxic anti-female behavior and propagated mental illness, and not some guy who died a virgin a hundred years ago.

And secondly, if you've ever read anything posted by incels, it smacks of porn obsession and misinformation.

That's because of the manosphere, which perpetuates the idea that all women are soulless monsters whom only go for "chads" and never for a man who is a 7 out of 10 in appearance or less

Porn didn't make them this way. A toxic mix of being uncool in highschool, an atomized society and misogyny did

Porn is not the only culprit, but it is part of the problem. It's clearly a part of their culture, as it were.

[Byzconia]

The minimalist government would be mostly be limited to enforcing property rights. Corporations benefit from this equally. So why would they try to take over the government? If to limit property rights then I reckon they'd be opposed by all other corporations if they attempted that.

Except corporations aren't perfectly rational actors, they're selfish actors. Equilibrium isn't enough. They'll want to try to takeover because then they can make laws and policies that benefit that particular corporation specifically. Corporations hate competition. As for being opposed by other corporations, sure, but the most basic law of competition is that someone has to win. That opposition is going to deplete over time until we're maybe reduced to a handful of squabbling oligopolies at best. At worst you get complete monopoly domination by one corporation.

But the point is moot. A libertarian corporation wouldn't have the same legal framework, anyway.

Care to elaborate?

And as of Adam Smith's time most corporations were granted charters by the government in the first place, securing their monopoly.

Doesn't change what he said, so it's not really relevant.

If "many" will grow then it's not a monopoly. And you should know walmart was a huge beneficiary to this day of government intervention.

I said they'll grow to be massive corporations, not monopolies. And yes, I'm aware of that, but it doesn't change the fact that such growth is inevitable. Again, that's how competition works. Even without the aid, Wal-Mart might've grown to what they are, and even if they didn't another definitely would have. Perfect competition doesn't exist, someone's going to win eventually.

[Mushet]

Due to political compass memes, whenever I see anything that has the word Libertarian in it, I immediately think of Recreational McNukes, NAP, no steppy snek, and When Money Comes Marching Home.

Like this one?

[The American Free States]

Due to political compass memes, whenever I see anything that has the word Libertarian in it, I immediately think of Recreational McNukes, NAP, no steppy snek, and When Money Comes Marching Home.

Like this one?

Yea that one. Very cool!

[Northern Davincia]

Second cousins would be the boundary. Cross that line, and the flogging commences.

So if you do it with your second cousin it's ok, or is that where you get the whip?

Cause I ain't gonna lie man, my second cousin is pretty hot. She's got red hair, green eyes and she's 5'7 so that's a plus in my book. To save face for those of you who think it's weird though, I'm not planning on doing anything with her nor is she my first pick in the big old book of hit it and quit it. I barely even see her

Second cousin and anyone more related than that is where you get the whip. Still, gingers are quite the treasure.

[Rojava Free State]

So if you do it with your second cousin it's ok, or is that where you get the whip?

Cause I ain't gonna lie man, my second cousin is pretty hot. She's got red hair, green eyes and she's 5'7 so that's a plus in my book. To save face for those of you who think it's weird though, I'm not planning on doing anything with her nor is she my first pick in the big old book of hit it and quit it. I barely even see her

Second cousin and anyone more related than that is where you get the whip. Still, gingers are quite the treasure.

Ight, well I wasn't gonna screw her anyways so uh, you can put that huge whip away

[Northern Davincia]

Second cousin and anyone more related than that is where you get the whip. Still, gingers are quite the treasure.

Ight, well I wasn't gonna screw her anyways so uh, you can put that huge whip away

My inner inquisitor is disappointed.

[New Paine]

And plenty of other people are exposed to porn young and don't turn out incels. It's almost as if different people are...different.

If this is something you're actually worried about, you should be supporting comprehensive sex education, so that porn isn't their first exposure to ideas of sex.

First of all, I reject the notion that one has to be compelled to support anything just because they oppose one thing.

Secondly, I already do.

Comprehensive set ed, as in instructing them about condom use and just not telling them to be abstinent until marriage because that is what Jesus wants?

Plus, porn is not why incels are incels. Incels are incels due to mental illness, misanthropy and self hatred. As with a lot of millennials, I was exposed to pornography at an earlier age then what would be best. But that is mixture of my own fault and the fault of my parents being technologically illiterate. But we can see that most millennials that were exposed to pornography at a younger age are not incels. Perhaps porn gave me some unrealistic expectations for sex, however I cannot blame pornography for my not being successful when it comes to dating.

Blaming porn for incels is no different than blaming video games for real world violence.

[Rojava Free State]

First of all, I reject the notion that one has to be compelled to support anything just because they oppose one thing.

Secondly, I already do.

Comprehensive set ed, as in instructing them about condom use and just not telling them to be abstinent until marriage because that is what Jesus wants?

Plus, porn is not why incels are incels. Incels are incels due to mental illness, misanthropy and self hatred. As with a lot of millennials, I was exposed to pornography at an earlier age then what would be best. But that is mixture of my own fault and the fault of my parents being technologically illiterate. But we can see that most millennial‘s that were exposed to pornography at a younger age are not incels. Perhaps porn gave me some unrealistic expectations for sex, however I cannot blame pornography for my not being successful when it comes to dating.

Blaming porn for incels is no different than blaming video games for real world violence.

My social skills were so bad as a teen that I basically had to wait for a girl to make a move

And I know, you're all gonna say "Rojava is big gay" because of that, but it's true

[Phoenicaea]

^i can say it to you, because i truly am a person of this kind, a person who simply doesn t get it. often people don t listen even when said to them.

it is a thing of temper, i believe. you can be born in your age or not, then circumstances yet a ‘truth‘ is simple.

truth is such, people as impaired as us as me, in front of the gentle half of humanity, they have always been there.

you can t get why, yet it is intuitive. as old as the violent, the honest, the hustle, the dealer, from roma to new york from ur to babylon 20’s berlin.

some people meets an harshness when it comes to be accepted by a partner, substantially these people chance only may be paying for a woman.

you may have a friend, someone you know, who doesn t like to think or having mind on politics. we are the same, we have a wasteland domain in our life.

for me, it is impossible how some people doesn t get simple philosophical sentences. what i see, is different people can t walk all domains.

not thing of appearance (i guess) nor health. i accept ‘mental shape’ bias, may be fragile mind, not ‘mental illness’. illness label is culturally imposed.

[Duvniask]

You could at least quote the post, man. I realize I took some time in replying, but I largely forgot about it.

But you don't actually believe that. Because why, then, are you defending capitalism, a system where the property-owning ruling class, per definition, relies extensively on unearned income and rent-seeking?

Beyond whatever supervisory work a capitalist performs and whatever else they do in the production process, the left-overs, the profits accrue to them solely by virtue of ownership, not work. To quote Joan Robinson: "Owning capital is not a productive activity". Owning stock somewhere is not work, it is just passive income accruing to you because, as a legal matter, society has determined that it belongs to you.

It is not unearned. Intellectual work is work, and the capitalist class often works far more hours than the proles below them.

We did not discuss, anywhere, whether or not intellectual work constituted "work". You shall find no disagreement with that in any of my posts.

The capitalist class supposedly working harder than your average "prole" is itself a red-herring, a distraction, as if trying to say "they work the longest, therefore they earned it!". Suppose a "prole" and capitalist work the same amount of hours, and let's say with the same mental and physical toll on their body; the chief difference, then, is that one is part of a propertied class, and the other is not. I have already stated this, too, that the status of capitalist itself means nothing but accruing the wealth produced by others. It is parasitism, pure and simple. Whatever work performed beyond it is irrelevant to the matter at hand: it does not logically follow that capitalists working means they are entitled to the proceeds of production, entitled to monopolize production for their own benefits, whether individually or as a class.

No.

I am illustrating why your reasoning isn't very sound by applying it in an exaggerated context. Admittedly something I love to do, even if people tend to misunderstand. The point is that it doesn't matter if you're given something in return, it doesn't matter if there's incentive; it is still exploitation.

And as for the gun analogy I came up with, you are spared your life (or spared from harm) in return, so you definitely have an "incentive" to obey.

That is not a positive incentive, however. In capitalism, you not only have your life, you have income and basic luxuries, as well as the opportunity to progress to higher income levels.

Then take the sexual harassment example. There are plenty of positive incentive there, but that does not make it just or non-exploitative.

1) The slaver's incentive is mutually beneficial too. You get a roof over your head, presumably, and you get to have access to food, etc.

2) Honestly, everything I've ever heard about labor conditions prior to the rise of organized labor is pretty similar. Doing factory work in the 1800s wasn't very fun. The only reason labor conditions are that much more tolerable is because of labor movements and those who had foresight enough to stall their emergence through reform. Even so, all the evidence I've ever seen points to social stratification still very much being a fact of life in all societies, including my own, which is one of the most equal (income-wise, at least) on the planet.

1. These things are guaranteed to pets, but there is always greater incentive for a man to be free, as he can recieve the market worth of his labor to do with as he pleases and act on his own free will.

Your original argument appeared to be that the capitalist relation wasn't exploitative because it is incentive based, then you switched to saying it was mutually beneficial. I think I have demonstrated well enough that both these arguments don't really hold much water. Slavery provides its own incentives to the slave, as does it provide mutually beneficial, however terrible, outcomes for both parts. The existence of these things can then, logically, not be the difference between the the exploitation under slavery and a supposedly exploitation-less capitalism - both have them.

So now you say that the incentive under capitalism is all around greater. but if we're really going to speak of the scale of incentive, the I'll say there's a greater incentive for the working class to rid themselves of capitalists and build a society where they are not mere cogs in a machine and organizing production to societal needs has become the common domain of all.

The slave gets a very small portion of the benefits, below what he is entitled to, and has much more to lose if his master wishes him dead.

The worker under capitalism also gets a very small portion of the benefits, just look and compare pay between average employees and those in top positions.

What the slave is "entitled to" is an open question here. And it begs for an explanation of whether or not proletarians also receive whatever they are "entitled to".

2. Fun was never part of the equation. There will always be jobs people don't like, but they still need to be done.

Surely you understand that I'm speaking of "fun" not as fun on the playground but as a general way to say "times were tough", "it sucked" and so on. In other words, doing factory labor in the 1800s was terrible, damaging to your health, you could expect to not be very well compensated for it and you could certainly expect that your life wouldn't progress very much beyond it.

Surely you realize that.

I'm not interested in utopian escapism, because I care about having a good, just and moral society.

As for the self-employment thing, I'll refer to this past post of mine. It's not fully related, but it addresses the point, I think.

Do communes not offer good, just, and moral societies? You already know our moral axioms are completely different.

Like most people with political views of any kind, I wish for my vision to be the general way of things. Why should I accept exploitation, injustice and immorality outside of the confines of whatever commune I could hypothetically reside in? I don't think it's that different from right-libertarians wanting everyone to live under free markets. Having freedom itself is not really a choice, after all.

I for one think that people who can't work should be able to live on. In the event of post-scarcity of food, I find it a matter of moral utility that everyone gets a right to food.

Post-scarcity is a fantasy at the moment. I would not be opposed to a negative income tax for those who cannot work, but those who do not want to work have no sympathy from me.

I happen to think there's more to being a society than just going "fuck it" and letting those that don't work die.

"To each according to his contribution" is literally an expression of merit-based reward.

This is only in the context of time and intensity of labor, rather than its societal value.

And I'm supposed to believe capitalism rewards the labor done for its "societal value"? As if any scam for a cheap buck that turns out successfully is somehow socially valuable? As if the bankers who ran away with their grand bonuses during the financial crisis were doing society a service? Companies that make cheap shit and market it as something worthwhile? I don't think so. And they definitely weren't rewarded for their "merit" either, except perhaps in a completely amoral sense.

The advertising industry is a wonderful example of how capitalism must instill the desires of consumerism in the population, not because of it having any real societal value in itself, but purely to stimulate demand for products in order that the capitalist class may further squeeze money out of the population. It even misuses fields such as anthropology and psychology to essentially brainwash people into becoming consumers. Advertising informs us of the existence of products, sure, but it is always with the implicit goal of getting us to buy said products, even if we don't need them. This isn't "societal value", it's mostly just a farce that exists for its own sake.

This is kind of your word against mine, but over the course of my life I've heard both my mother and father complain about incompetent bosses. My father's worked at the same place for 30+ years, and he's by no means an incompetent guy. He even has patents to his name. I believe he loves his work, but he definitely dislikes management. He's not even a leftist, he's a right-winger who doesn't mind referring to black people as "negere", and I don't think I need to explain what that means.

Have these incompetent bosses driven their business into the ground? If so, they will not be bosses for very long.

You ever heard of the concept of "failing upwards"?

In any case, incompetence takes many forms; it doesn't have to mean being unable to turn a simple profit, as it can also mean ignorance of the craft (engineering of materials, in my father's case), disrespect for workers, firing competent staff (who knew what they were doing), choosing less viable (and sometimes even less profitable) solutions to problems of essentially scientific nature, etc.

The simple fact of the matter is that the world is more complicated than "good guy is good, therefore he becomes boss". Managerial incompetence is fairly widespread and most people (65-70%) dislike having to deal with their boss (source).

Free speech does have a positive dimension in the sense that, without it, no one is required to give you the ability to speak. There doesn't have to be any place where it's allowed, if, say, someone buys all the land as their private property and says "nuh-uh, you aren't allowed to do that on my property". As far as I can tell, things like protests require public spaces to be feasible.

It is not enough that no one is required to give you the ability to speak, only in their capacity to take that ability away.

But suppose someone buys all the land under purely "legitimate" means. We're now in a situation where their right to not have their property infringed by all sorts of disagreeable opinions now trumps whatever positive right people have to be able to speak up and have their opinions heard.

Historically, indentured servitude could be very harsh and result in death before the contract was completed. There's a reason it has been outlawed as a form of slavery.

The bare minimum solution would be to include stipulations that protect the servant from injury or death.

The safer bet is to not have these types of relationships in the first place.

Yet they tend to oppose the measures which actually guarantee it, or action to bring about a society where it is the norm, because it inconveniences property owners.

No, it is because your measures would define humane treatment as free from all inconvenience.

Not really, no. Being a worker under communism doesn't free you from all inconvenience, but it does free you from inconveniences unnecessarily produced by capitalism.

[Hanafuridake]

I think it's fairly obvious that when I refer to "incels" I'm referring to the modern phenomenon of toxic anti-female behavior and propagated mental illness, and not some guy who died a virgin a hundred years ago.

And secondly, if you've ever read anything posted by incels, it smacks of porn obsession and misinformation.

That's because of the manosphere, which perpetuates the idea that all women are soulless monsters whom only go for "chads" and never for a man who is a 7 out of 10 in appearance or less

Porn didn't make them this way. A toxic mix of being uncool in highschool, an atomized society and misogyny did

There's a ton of misogyny in porn though. The widespread access to commercialized pornography has undoubtedly helped spread unrealistic ideas about sex and dating which leads to the misconceptions mentioned above.

[Elwher]

You could at least quote the post, man. I realize I took some time in replying, but I largely forgot about it.

Do communes not offer good, just, and moral societies? You already know our moral axioms are completely different.

Like most people with political views of any kind, I wish for my vision to be the general way of things. Why should I accept exploitation, injustice and immorality outside of the confines of whatever commune I could hypothetically reside in? I don't think it's that different from right-libertarians wanting everyone to live under free markets. Having freedom itself is not really a choice, after all.

One major, to me at least, difference between most, if not all, socialist plans for societies and right libertarian ones is the fact that in the latter, a group could form a socialistic commune while in the former a capitalistic sub group would not be tolerated. That makes the latter more free to me, as it allows for differing economic viewpoints.

[The Black Forrest]

That's because of the manosphere, which perpetuates the idea that all women are soulless monsters whom only go for "chads" and never for a man who is a 7 out of 10 in appearance or less

Porn didn't make them this way. A toxic mix of being uncool in highschool, an atomized society and misogyny did

There's a ton of misogyny in porn though. The widespread access to commercialized pornography has undoubtedly helped spread unrealistic ideas about sex and dating which leads to the misconceptions mentioned above.

I never thought I would open a thread on Libertarianism and read a comment about misogyny and porn. Porn is as old as when we figured out imagery.

Back to the incels? They are a breed who celebrates being miserable. You try to advise them and play wing man and they want nothing of it.

[Duvniask]

You could at least quote the post, man. I realize I took some time in replying, but I largely forgot about it.

Like most people with political views of any kind, I wish for my vision to be the general way of things. Why should I accept exploitation, injustice and immorality outside of the confines of whatever commune I could hypothetically reside in? I don't think it's that different from right-libertarians wanting everyone to live under free markets. Having freedom itself is not really a choice, after all.

One major, to me at least, difference between most, if not all, socialist plans for societies and right libertarian ones is the fact that in the latter, a group could form a socialistic commune while in the former a capitalistic sub group would not be tolerated. That makes the latter more free to me, as it allows for differing economic viewpoints.

How are small scale communes even supposed to work if they aren't ultimately extensions of world capitalism? The amount of diverse materials alone necessary to power a modern economy suggest that communes can't really exist on their own, in autarchy. They must become dependent on the very things they would be trying to escape from, and such escapist experiments are easily subsumed back into capitalism.