And yet another thread on libertarianism

Welcome to our forum. This is a place for people to debate and rant about stuff. Enjoy!

Click here to register.

If you're already a member, you can log in here:

Pages:
1
2

And yet another thread on libertarianism; dimensional talk
Topic Started: 29 Mar 2012, 05:55 AM (740 Views)
Ardat	29 Mar 2012, 05:55 AM Post #1
Posts: 2,091 Group: Elite Members Member #491 Joined: 26-Jul 2011	If libertarianism can be described, in simplified terms, as a beliefs system that advocates for a market free of all regulations, in order to achieve complete economical liberty; and if the market is a dynamical entity driven by the laws of supply and demand, then to be a libertarian, you need to make one of the three following assumptions: - The economical equilibrium defined by the set of incentives producing the laws of supply and demand will be preserved when we account for the social forces that are not addressed in economics - The marketplace is a completely independent subset of human activities, presenting no overlap with other cultural aspects of mankind - Economics actually addresses, in some way or another, our entire cultural spectrum In other words, I think libertarianism is a lab case, the answer to a reduced and unrealistic problem that somehow assumes an economical equilibrium would also be a social one or, failing that, that any economical equilibrium is completely independent from other stable points that arise from different subsets of human activities. Seems rather presumptuous to me. Equivalently, political ideologies such as communism, which wishes away economical individualism and competitive behaviors, are just as much answers to specific idealizations of reality. They aren't irrelevant, because no stable configuration would be totally independent from these idealized solutions, but they remain nevertheless incomplete. And that's why I'm a social capitalist. Edited by Ardat, 29 Mar 2012, 06:16 AM.
	What's more fun than fighting crime?


PoodieCore	29 Mar 2012, 07:00 AM Post #2
German douche Posts: 3,296 Group: Old Grumpy Nazi Member #705 Joined: 3-Aug 2011	Badhouses demonstrated quite well why libertarianism isn't really a fluffy idea... When total contract freedom enabales the majority to fuck with the rights of a minority, then fuck it. Everything boils down to the moral question, whether coercion is wrong. Somehow it is forgotten that coercion occurs naturually in markets because of severly differing market powers. A large company can and often does impose his will upon a smaller company. Volkswagen, GM or Toyota for example dicatate their conditions on their smaller suppliers. And no this environment was created by market forces and not by governmental interference. A world without coercion cannot exist. Hence we should have a controlling element which limits the power of the powerful to make sure the weak do not get totally fucked over. This element is called state. A state is not almighty and you can limit the power of the state significantly in a democratic society. The state is accountable for his actions in front of the public. The state is neutral and obliged to treat every member of society equally (at least he should be...). You can introduce laws to prevent excessive lobbying from happening. So the "almighty state" argument is not really an argument for me.
	Best forum quotes: 1080Poop Intellectually this thread is like discovering a vagina for the first time. You're fascinated by it but scared of it at the same time. The scent is alluring and sparks something inside of you that gets a reaction. You poke and prod at it in inquisitiveness. "Is it safe to put my dick in here?" You ask yourself.


Nemesis	29 Mar 2012, 08:22 AM Post #3
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,811 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	PoodieCore 29 Mar 2012, 07:00 AM Badhouses demonstrated quite well why libertarianism isn't really a fluffy idea... When total contract freedom enabales the majority to fuck with the rights of a minority, then fuck it. That isn't libertarianism. It's libertarianism + Bad's own ideas. PoodieCore 29 Mar 2012, 07:00 AM Somehow it is forgotten that coercion occurs naturually in markets because of severly differing market powers. A large company can and often does impose his will upon a smaller company. Volkswagen, GM or Toyota for example dicatate their conditions on their smaller suppliers. And no this environment was created by market forces and not by governmental interference. That isn't coercion. The suppliers can chose not to accept the conditions. Sure, they'll suffer, but they won't go to jail or get killed. You can't chose not to pay your taxes. Understand the difference? Ardat 29 Mar 2012, 05:55 AM If libertarianism can be described, in simplified terms, as a beliefs system that advocates for a market free of all regulations, in order to achieve complete economical liberty Regulations will be private and the market will be self-regulation. Call that "free of all regulations" isn't correct. Ardat 29 Mar 2012, 05:55 AM - The economical equilibrium defined by the set of incentives producing the laws of supply and demand will be preserved when we account for the social forces that are not addressed in economics - The marketplace is a completely independent subset of human activities, presenting no overlap with other cultural aspects of mankind - Economics actually addresses, in some way or another, our entire cultural spectrum I'm not making any of those assumptions. Can you find some anarcho-capitalist or right-libertarians that said anything like that, or was it just pulled out of your ass? Edited by Nemesis, 29 Mar 2012, 08:32 AM.



Ardat	29 Mar 2012, 12:23 PM Post #4
Posts: 2,091 Group: Elite Members Member #491 Joined: 26-Jul 2011	Nemesis 29 Mar 2012, 08:22 AM Regulations will be private and the market will be self-regulation. Call that "free of all regulations" isn't correct. If the companies regulating the market are private, or if we talk of self-regulation, then my point remain valid, because both mechanisms are still motivated by the same incentives that produce the laws of economics. By letting a subset of human activities run loose, you implicitly accept that it will reach a natural equilibrium, whether self regulation is part of it or not. But you can't expect an equilibrium to remain stable if you add dimensions and incentives to your problem, just as you can't expect an economical equilibrium to be reached without disturbing other stable points that might arise from other subsets of the cultural spectrum, and vice versa. This is what I mean when I say that you have to make one of the three assumptions aforementioned. The economical stable point only is a social one in a perfectly economical society, it's an idealization. There are other social forces, not independent of those addressed by economics but not contingent upon them, that would inevitably perturb the liberty of the marketplace to be free or self-regulated, the opposite being just as true. In this picture, a government is an expression of some of these other social forces that need to be taken into account, just as much as a balance between supply and demand is an expression of the ones that are addressed by the laws of economics. And they are both part of the solution, because the multitude of incentives that are expressed through human interactions aren't linearly independent. Sex has an overlap with commercial exchanges in the form of prostitution and pornography. Creativity overlaps financial concerns with art sells or the film industry. And so on and so forth.
	What's more fun than fighting crime?


Nemesis	29 Mar 2012, 12:37 PM Post #5
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,811 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	Is an unfair equilibrium better than a fair non-equilibrium?



Ardat	29 Mar 2012, 12:41 PM Post #6
Posts: 2,091 Group: Elite Members Member #491 Joined: 26-Jul 2011	You know I can't answer this. Fairness has no place in the way I envision society. More seriously, you answered the question yourself. That a non-equilibrium is fair in your opinion is irrelevant, 'cause it's not a configuration that could prevail overtime, hence the equilibrium denomination. So at gunpoint, I'd say the unfair equilibrium is 'better', whatever the hell that means. Edited by Ardat, 29 Mar 2012, 01:37 PM.
	What's more fun than fighting crime?


BadHouses	29 Mar 2012, 01:55 PM Post #7
Posts: 757 Group: Lalalandian Member #1,231 Joined: 13-Sep 2011	What is a cultural spectrum? What social forces are you talking about? What are social aspects?
	We'll have a real wild time.


Ardat	29 Mar 2012, 02:02 PM Post #8
Posts: 2,091 Group: Elite Members Member #491 Joined: 26-Jul 2011	Cultural spectrum: everything humans do in a given society. Every aspect of our culture, every activity in which we engage ourselves. Social forces: the expressions in a society of fundamental drives that shape the cultural landscape and define our interactions. Sex, power, money, creativity, curiosity, love, founding a family, etc. Those are good examples. Social aspects: just a synonym of cultural spectrum, so I don't repeat myself too much.
	What's more fun than fighting crime?


BadHouses	29 Mar 2012, 02:42 PM Post #9
Posts: 757 Group: Lalalandian Member #1,231 Joined: 13-Sep 2011	@Poodie: ...or you've demonstrated you don't understand why my worldview is actually fair because of some mental block. On the example you gave, you're stuck in this "majority/minority" thing as if I'm advocating an entire country kicking out their minorities, even though all of the conversation I've had has been about communities, that is local, well-connected groups of people. As well, your concept of liberty means that denying someone a product or service is denying their freedom. Which is insane. And dumb. As Nemesis mentioned, saying that a free market will be without "regulation" is a bit incorrect. There are many natural "regulations," for example: When a bank has the backing of a State, it will loan out all of its reserves as much as possible to maximise its profit. Even if the loans fail, they'll still get their money in the end. However in the free market, bankers actually have to be intelligent businessmen and make loans that are safe, collateralized, whatever. No government needs to tell a bank to make safe loans, the threat of bankruptcy and the wish to have a stable, continuous income is enough to make that happen. This also limits the amount of money created through fractional reserve banking. Can you give an example of how economical equilibriums don't match up with these social forces/aspects, if that is what you are saying? I'll try and answer why I think the assumptions you say libertarians need to have are misleading. All of those cultural things like sex, power, family-raising and love are human goals. Humans, acting as rationally as they can, pursue those goals. In doing so they enter the marketplace with the express purpose of either attaining, or procuring the means to attaining those goals. So economical equilibriums more or less revolve around the subjective evaluations that all people are making, with supply and demand (as well as the indicator prices which emerge from it) being the most basic way of examining their evaluations. "Culture" emerges from the same procedure. I guess my assumption is the last, come to think of it. But it's not that economics "addresses" it, it's that these patterns of behaviour are emergent, organic, and do not need any top down control. Birds don't need to be told by god to fly around buildings, or to migrate, they just do. Our ability to conceptualise and fantasize really hampers us will silly notions like Statism (a.k.a. religiosity), that being the trade off of making us such a successful and innovative species. (P.S. This is a bit poorly edited, but my computer is being a dick today and perpetually scrolls down making editing impossible.) Edited by BadHouses, 29 Mar 2012, 04:10 PM.
	We'll have a real wild time.


Categories+Sheaves	29 Mar 2012, 02:43 PM Post #10
Pedantic Curmudgeon Posts: 316 Group: Subgame Perfect Pony Member #1,868 Joined: 20-Oct 2011	Nemesis 29 Mar 2012, 08:22 AM Ardat 29 Mar 2012, 05:55 AM - The economical equilibrium defined by the set of incentives producing the laws of supply and demand will be preserved when we account for the social forces that are not addressed in economics - The marketplace is a completely independent subset of human activities, presenting no overlap with other cultural aspects of mankind - Economics actually addresses, in some way or another, our entire cultural spectrum I'm not making any of those assumptions. Can you find some anarcho-capitalist or right-libertarians that said anything like that, or was it just pulled out of your ass? To get at what the assumptions of Libertarianism are... Pigou taxes are a pretty common argument for government: some equilibria (e.g. when a pollutant-spewing factory's production is keyed to the eq. from the car market, without regard to how the local villagers feel) are not good or efficient results. We know from Coase that the people in the dispute, if they reach some sort of agreement, will probably arrive at a solution preferable to what the government would have done. But they have to... you know, reach an agreement. Are we really that confident in the ability of... whatever sort of open-market justice system we have... to control these sorts of things? If the private solution exists and is not a monopoly, it is very likely to be better. But how certain can be be that these solutions will exist in this nice way? It's plausible, and I'd like to see this stuff implemented, but I'm not convinced that this approach won't produce something that doesn't look a good deal like the governments we have now. Edited by Categories+Sheaves, 29 Mar 2012, 03:50 PM.
	So these philosophers were all like, "That Kant apply universally!" And then these mathematicians were all like, "Oh yes it Kan!" Daily Dose of Zizek Bearded, disheveled, and loud, Zizek looks like central casting's pick for the role of Eastern European Intellectual. Newspapers are lowered and conversations stop as a skittish waiter shows us to a small table in the far corner of the room. Barely pausing to sit down, Zizek launches into a monologue so learned and amusing that it could very well appear–verbatim–in one of the many books he has written about the obscene rules that sustain our supposedly civilized social practices. With lightning speed , he moves from the decline of British culture ("They took perfectly good tea, added milk, and made it look like filthy dishwater!") to Hollywood ("Brad Pitt's Seven Years in Tibet–a terrible movie!") to the Tibetan legal system ("a process of formalized bribery where opposing parties bid against each other in a ritualized auction–I absolutely love this!"). Invictus Out of the night that covers me, Black as the pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul. In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance My head is bloody, but unbowed. Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the Horror of the shade, And yet the menace of the years Finds and shall find me unafraid. It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll. I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul. Fancypants Math Rants


PoodieCore	29 Mar 2012, 03:20 PM Post #11
German douche Posts: 3,296 Group: Old Grumpy Nazi Member #705 Joined: 3-Aug 2011	BadHouses 29 Mar 2012, 02:42 PM @Poodie: ...or you've demonstrated you don't understand why my worldview is actually fair because of some mental block. On the example you gave, you're stuck in this "majority/minority" thing as if I'm advocating an entire country kicking out their minorities, even though all of the conversation I've had has been about communities, that is local, well-connected groups of people. As well, your concept of liberty means that denying someone a product or service is denying their freedom. Which is insane. And dumb. You are blocking an entire ethnic group from entering your dream society. How is that fair? And yes if you deny someone to buy a crucial commodity, you are severly shitting on his freedom. I don't give a flying fuck about the freedom of assholes to be assholes. Sure a doorman can deny you access to a club, when you wear shitty cloths. But telling someone that he can't buy a house or even food based on his ethnic background, is bullshit and that should in no way be encouraged by society. In this instant, I don't care about your property rights. If you really think that you can justify any bullshit with "voluntary" contracts, sorry you are the moron. Sorry I actually value concepts such as solidarity, tolerance and individual opportunities. We can argue about morality till doomsday comes. In the end, I literally shit on the individual or in your case with the community the collective freedom to act like a douchebag towards minorities. Sorry... Edited by PoodieCore, 29 Mar 2012, 03:21 PM.
	Best forum quotes: 1080Poop Intellectually this thread is like discovering a vagina for the first time. You're fascinated by it but scared of it at the same time. The scent is alluring and sparks something inside of you that gets a reaction. You poke and prod at it in inquisitiveness. "Is it safe to put my dick in here?" You ask yourself.


Ardat	29 Mar 2012, 04:38 PM Post #12
Posts: 2,091 Group: Elite Members Member #491 Joined: 26-Jul 2011	BadHouses 29 Mar 2012, 02:42 PM As Nemesis mentioned, saying that a free market will be without "regulation" is a bit disingenuous. True, but I explained why my criticism remains valid nevertheless. A self regulated market is still a market that relies on the subset of incentives defining the laws of economics to reach an equilibrium, and what I'm attempting to do here, is to prove that it would trivially not address the entire spectrum of our needs. Bankruptcy is still a natural expression of the supply and demand principle, so no contradiction there. Quote: Can you give an example of how economical equilibriums don't match up with these social forces/aspects, if that is what you are saying? Not really, and I shouldn't have to. I have no idea of what a perfect economical equilibrium would look like, and am even more at a loss when I'm trying to imagine a perfect social equilibrium. I'm only reflecting on the fundamentals, not the specifics. Quote: Humans, acting as rationally as they can, pursue those goals. In doing so they enter the marketplace with the express purpose of either attaining, or procuring the means to attaining those goals. So economical equilibriums more or less revolve around the subjective evaluations that all people are making, with supply and demand (as well as the indicator prices which emerge from it) being the most basic way of examining their evaluations. "Culture" emerges from the same procedure. The problem with your reasoning is that I'm not arguing the market cannot supply individuals with whatever they might desire, although it would be a valid criticism. No, my point is that, since the shape of an economy is defined by efficiency and the desire to make profit answering people's demands, those key elements, while certainly important, do not account for all the forces that drive human activities. So the economical equilibrium that's defined by the balance of the incentives shaping the marketplace will not account for them as well, and would not be stable in a non-idealized society, where the entire cultural spectrum is represented. Unleashing the market is essentially giving a subset of all social forces the possibility to achieve an equilibrium that only concerns them, even accounting for private and self-regulations. It would not answer all major human needs, but those would certainly be perturbed by the unmeddled drive guiding the market. In other words, an economical equilibrium isn't equivalent to a social one, even though they are not independent. Edited by Ardat, 29 Mar 2012, 04:39 PM.
	What's more fun than fighting crime?


salamutスタッフ	29 Mar 2012, 04:42 PM Post #13
فقط الحفاظ على الابتسام Posts: 3,566 Group: Don't call me Autist Member #724 Joined: 7-Aug 2011	NOOOOOOO! Nobody else post on this thread. This is an unofficial lock.
	Toast 16 Feb 2012, 06:13 AM What the fuck is that shit, man? Are you going to provide anything relevant about reality besides posting nonsense about an elaborate hoax?


Attackthesystem	30 Mar 2012, 11:18 PM Post #14
Posts: 359 Group: Members Member #2,386 Joined: 22-Jan 2012
	Hall of fame. 1. Varmit. 2. Alaskvarhehas. 3. Zinna. Santorum toplist. 1. FederalistFilms. 2. Clamju. 3. Maybe you ? Honorable mention 1. Podiecore. 2. Nemesis. Spoiler: click to toggle It's time this country stopped choosing ex-Etonians and millionaires for its leaders (the present cabinet has 23 millionaires out of 29 members). Those who come from silver-spoon backgrounds like Cameron's are, despite their smarmy rhetoric, are out of touch with the reality or ordinary life. Any government run by such people is bound to favour its own class. Won't we ever learn? We don't live in a democracy. Never have done. Our basic freedoms are being eroded at an alarming rate, and we are letting it happen. One day it'll be too late. If we vote these idiots, it signifies our approval of, and faith in, the system, so who are we to complain? If there's there's no-one worth voting for, we should pass a vote of no confidence by not voting at all. Has anyone any views on the forthcoming Jubilee? I have, but they're probably unprintable! Personally, I think it's high time the whole idea of monarchy was scrapped. It's long past its sell-by date and totally inapproriate in any modern egalitarian (joke) society. As long as we have a parasitic monarchy, any claims to being a democratic country are a sham. Ultimately, the British state exists to serve, protect, maintain and honour: 1. the reigning monarch. 2. the royal family. 3. the wealthy elites who bask in royal patronage. 4. big business in general and the City of London scam. 5. the honours system (where the queen is legally defined as the "Fount of Honour" (being the source of 'honour' she can't confer honours upon herself - unlike Idi Amin!). 6. the legal system (where HM is legally defined as the "Fount of Justice" (she is immune to all laws made in her name) Symbolically, the Jubilee is a celebration of this out-dated, unjust, hierarchical system. It commemorates the one moment in 1953 when the Archbishop of Canterbury (as head magician of the 'Established Church') anointed Mrs Elizabeth 'Windsor-Mountbatten' with holy oil behind a screen. This 'sacred' act alone magically made her queen. A load of archaic, meaningless, hocus-pocus - all performed at taxpayers' expense.


Nemesis	31 Mar 2012, 06:13 AM Post #15
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,811 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	Attackthesystem 30 Mar 2012, 11:18 PM ?



oscarstrok	1 Apr 2012, 03:52 AM Post #16
Deamon man-child of Evil Posts: 788 Group: Members Member #1,208 Joined: 11-Sep 2011	Why do people take comfort in radical ideas? libertarians are as delusional as Marxists.
	Spoiler: click to toggle


Nemesis	1 Apr 2012, 09:07 AM Post #17
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,811 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	oscarstrok 1 Apr 2012, 03:52 AM Why do people take comfort in radical ideas? libertarians are as delusional as Marxists. You said that several times already. It's the only thing you're capable of saying about this topic.



oscarstrok	12 Apr 2012, 03:33 PM Post #18
Deamon man-child of Evil Posts: 788 Group: Members Member #1,208 Joined: 11-Sep 2011	Nemesis 1 Apr 2012, 09:07 AM oscarstrok 1 Apr 2012, 03:52 AM Why do people take comfort in radical ideas? libertarians are as delusional as Marxists. You said that several times already. It's the only thing you're capable of saying about this topic. You'd think I'd remember what I post, wouldn't you?
	Spoiler: click to toggle


Nemesis	12 Apr 2012, 03:49 PM Post #19
Internet Zombie Posts: 7,811 Group: God Member #653 Joined: 28-Jul 2011	oscarstrok 12 Apr 2012, 03:33 PM Nemesis 1 Apr 2012, 09:07 AM oscarstrok 1 Apr 2012, 03:52 AM Why do people take comfort in radical ideas? libertarians are as delusional as Marxists. You said that several times already. It's the only thing you're capable of saying about this topic. You'd think I'd remember what I post, wouldn't you? http://forum.thatfatatheist.com/single/?p=8211571&t=9334200 Edited by Nemesis, 12 Apr 2012, 03:58 PM.



Retardskull	12 Apr 2012, 05:00 PM Post #20
Posts: 346 Group: Members Member #568 Joined: 26-Jul 2011	There's no such thing as freedom. Human beings value not being bossed around, because being on the bottom of the hierarchy is a less advantageous position genetically, and they also don't like being bossed around if they have a high position to lose. It's as simple as that. Ultimately though, there is no freedom from consequence, and there's no freedom from needing to restrict the freedom of those who would restrict your freedom etc etc... What's actually important is the wellbeing and happiness of people. Libertarianism should be relegated from an absolutist ideology to a "nice principle". Now let us never discuss it again.
	I love nukes! BWAAAAAAAAORRRRRRR! me yowtchowab


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2