It was not impossible to build it in the middle of the sea; it was impossible to build it anywhere else.

SallyNasty wrote:

These threads take the oddest turns sometimes.

I'd say not so odd if we scratch the surface: often our beliefs about what our politics should look like today are a product of our version of the history of yesterday, and the lessons about 'human nature' we draw from it.

I know I'm going in the somewhat-wayback machine here, but I did want to get back to this. Honestly, I lack the inclination to keep up with the politics discussions here, so I only check in occasionally.

Robear wrote:
Somehow, these arguments always move to extremes. I'd just ask a basic question: is being able to leave a society OK with you? Let's say we both live in a society. You think a strong central government should tax the rich and give to the causes you believe in. I just want to be left alone, which means that I don't want to be heavily taxed to support your causes. How do you resolve that?

Well, since you're getting the benefits of all those taxes, if you don't want to pay them, leave. Should we change an entire working system to accommodate the few who want to benefit but don't want to pay? Or should we work instead to fix the problems so more people are happy with the system, while those who really want to are allowed to leave?

So it's your way or the highway? Your system is the right system, no discussion? What if I want to pay 12% like you pay? Or is our system one of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" If so, who decides "ability" and "need?"

Robear wrote:

Quote:

If they don't want to live in the society anymore, they can leave.

So, why doesn't this work today with the poor living in the inner cities in squalor and working desperately hard just to keep from being homeless? What part of the mechanism is broken and would be fixed by Libertarianism?

You don't think that's an overstatement? No one ever gets out? Have we posted guards and a barbed wire fence? Hell's Kitchen remained Hell's Kitchen forever?

It's not tied to a particular geography, of course. The amount of poor people has actually *increased* in the last decade or so. Don't think of it geographically. Think of the entire situation. If it's so easy for people to leave their situation to better themselves, why don't we see that happening now with the poor? I'm arguing that just as the poor can't easily get out their situation now, there will be plenty of people who could end up stuck in abusive situations in a libertarian system. What's the mechanism that makes "just leave" work for them, but not for people in a democracy? Serious question.

I don't identify myself with labels like Libertarianism. I find that using labels often replaces thinking. No need to reason when you can stick it in a box.

That said, wikipedia defines Libertarianism as such: "Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of governmental activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom." So a system that espouses 'individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society' is by it's very nature abusive? I think people have been playing Bioshock too long.

As for your specific question of why we don't see 'people leave their situation to better themselves,' it's interesting, isn't it? Perhaps the current system doesn't work very well? There's been a fair amount of research to that effect, but it sure isn't popular to cite. One good book about it was "The Tragedy of American Compassion," if anyone cares to read up on the question. Apparently Bill Clinton liked it.

For the record, I don't believe that a libertarian system would lead to Eden. It doesn't fix the fact that men are not angels. Then again neither does democracy. Because of that, I'd rather not give too much power to any one person or office.

Poppinfresh wrote:

That said, wikipedia defines Libertarianism

There's a difference between "Wikipedia defines Libertarianism..." and "Libertarians define Libertarianism..."

as such: "Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of governmental activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom."

For instance, this: Wikipedia is then leaving out a very important idea in Libertarianism: the principle of non-aggression. Dig deeper into Wikipedia and you'll find this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontol...

So a system that espouses 'individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society' is by it's very nature abusive? I think people have been playing Bioshock too long.

I think you might have a different definition of that phrase "individual liberty" than a lot of Libertarians. I don't know enough about you to say, so I'd be interested in what it is that comes to your mind when you hear that phrase and whether it's what Libertarians mean when they use it.

Robear wrote:

Quote:

Somehow, these arguments always move to extremes. I'd just ask a basic question: is being able to leave a society OK with you? Let's say we both live in a society. You think a strong central government should tax the rich and give to the causes you believe in. I just want to be left alone, which means that I don't want to be heavily taxed to support your causes. How do you resolve that?

Well, since you're getting the benefits of all those taxes, if you don't want to pay them, leave. Should we change an entire working system to accommodate the few who want to benefit but don't want to pay? Or should we work instead to fix the problems so more people are happy with the system, while those who really want to are allowed to leave?

So it's your way or the highway? Your system is the right system, no discussion? What if I want to pay 12% like you pay? Or is our system one of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" If so, who decides "ability" and "need?"

No. The context of this quip was that the response to problems in the community under libertarian rules is often "they can just leave if they don't like it". I was trying to apply that to the current situation. I think you took that the wrong way, and if you think about what I usually write, I'm not a "my way or the highway" type. Nor am I a Communist. You missed the point here.

The specific question I'm raising with this is "What is so different about a libertarian world that people who are in bad situations now without the ability to leave will be able to do so in the new system?" If people really *can't* migrate away when racism or whatever appears - practiced by libertarians expressing their control over private property and their public relationships - then there's a serious issue with the libertarian system.

I don't identify myself with labels like Libertarianism. I find that using labels often replaces thinking. No need to reason when you can stick it in a box.

You are accusing me of not being, I don't know, analytical? Really? That's refreshingly different....

That said, wikipedia defines Libertarianism as such: "Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of governmental activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom." So a system that espouses 'individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society' is by it's very nature abusive? I think people have been playing Bioshock too long.

Again, you're not getting my argument. I'm saying that applied on a large scale, libertarian ideals which are fine in smaller settings can lead to abusive *outcomes*. I don't say the ideals themselves are abusive, nor that good outcomes are impossible. If I felt that way, you'd have seen it a long time ago, and repeatedly.

As for your specific question of why we don't see 'people leave their situation to better themselves,' it's interesting, isn't it? Perhaps the current system doesn't work very well? There's been a fair amount of research to that effect, but it sure isn't popular to cite. One good book about it was "The Tragedy of American Compassion," if anyone cares to read up on the question. Apparently Bill Clinton liked it.

The issue is not whether the current system works, but whether libertarianism applied to the country as a political philosophy could lead to bad outcomes as well as good ones. I've described how it's fatally flawed IF one takes the hard line that authoritarian use of power is aggressive. I've yet to see a mechanism proposed to prevent the aggregation of power by people whose goal is to live well by oppressing others. If you've got an insight into how to prevent that, let us know, but your comments above don't suggest any solution to the problems I've raised.

I wanted to keep things reasonably short, focusing on what I think is the heart of the matter, so I’m just going to write about the last part. I actually ended up doing some research, so it took me a little longer than I expected.

The issue is not whether the current system works, but whether libertarianism applied to the country as a political philosophy could lead to bad outcomes as well as good ones. I've described how it's fatally flawed IF one takes the hard line that authoritarian use of power is aggressive. I've yet to see a mechanism proposed to prevent the aggregation of power by people whose goal is to live well by oppressing others. If you've got an insight into how to prevent that, let us know, but your comments above don't suggest any solution to the problems I've raised.

Any system could lead to a bad outcome. Men are not angels, and they can warp good ideas into bad outcomes ala Animal Farm. The question, to my mind, is how does one go about “living well by oppressing others”, and how does it fit in with libertarian ideas?

I would think that the best way to prevent aggregation of power is by keeping power centers small. Thus, instead of one large central government, you have many smaller centers. That’s standard libertarianism, and well hashed over ground. I don’t think it’s really worth talking about in depth.

The other “power aggregator” is the modern day corporation, something which has an interesting history, but it hasn’t really been closely examined since the 1880’s or so. Most people, including modern-day libertarians, tend to use ‘corporation’ and ‘business’ interchangeably. I think that’s a big mistake.

The act of incorporation is pretty much what it sounds like, creating a legal entity. Originally, this was used only for government-like entities, such as townships or infrastructure building. The power of such a set-up was quickly realised, and government ultimately made forming a corporation pretty easy.

To my mind, seeking to restrict the incorporated entities of government while allowing the modern day corporation to run unfettered is against traditional libertarian principles (Smith, Ricardo, Mill,) and doesn’t make sense. A corporation is an artificial construct, a legal entity that since the 1860’s or so has been given the advantages of existence without paying the costs. Thus, an individual can participate in the advantages of a business, but avoid the total liabilities. If things go wrong, the individual can only lose their original investment-- they are shielded from further costs by the ‘death’ of the corporation, a powerful ability. This creates problems that are well noted at this point- an over-focus on profit motive, short-termism, and speculation, among others

In my mind, there is no reason that a private business venture with private aims should have the powerful shield of incorporation. Free and easy incorporation is at odds with traditional libertarianism. Thus, in a traditional libertarian structure, corporations would be few in number.

I want to emphasize that I am not anti-capitalist in my stance. I own a corporation myself! What I’m saying is that corporations are not an appropriate way to engage in capitalism. A system of limited partnership, even including silent partners, is far preferable. The key to my mind is that actual individuals be held accountable to the actions of a business.

The advantage of a corporation is that it is generally better able to attract capital, due to the downside protection involved. The thing is, most capital intensive businesses, such as power plants or building airplanes, meet the old definition of permissable corporations, as they are infrastructure builders. Those should remain corporations, though with open books, open doors, and of a limited and focused scope.

To me, the best way to resolve the issue from a libertarian standpoint is to let people decide if they want to live in a society with corporations. Personally, I can’t say that I’m positive which society I’d pick. Do the potential benefits of corporations outdo the potential harm? Should we just reject free incorporation on the basis of it being anti-libertarian?

I guess what I’d end with is to say that the idea of corporations are potentially problematic, but it isn’t a problem of a libertarian system. It’s a broad problem that a thoughtful, traditional libertarian should consider closely. Arguably, a corporation is an unfair gift of the state that can aggregate power while avoiding liability.

I can't believe I just thought of this the other day. (especially in light of Dylan Rattigan's rant some weeks ago.) But the next time someone ditto mouths that big goverment in this country is bad and has always been bad, I am going to tell them that big government in this country put a man on the moon!

Bad government has nothing to do with big or small. It has to do with oppression and balance of control. If anyone doesn't think that a government based on "leave me alone" policy, with the bare minimum ability to enforce that policy, is skewed on the balance of control curve, they are very misguided. In this case it is essentially creating a government that is hovering on the edge of balance of control and when unforeseen sh*t happens, there are no margins to deal with it.

I guess what I’d end with is to say that the idea of corporations are potentially problematic, but it isn’t a problem of a libertarian system. It’s a broad problem that a thoughtful, traditional libertarian should consider closely. Arguably, a corporation is an unfair gift of the state that can aggregate power while avoiding liability.

And yet the current prominence of libertarian principles in American politics is largely corporate sponsored, and seeks to *increase* the power of corporations through deregulation of industries, reduction of tax burdens and elimination of workplace, environmental and similar regulations designed to protect citizens. Ironic.

I like your analysis, Poppin. I'd add to the first few paragraphs the question of whether a wholesale change in system is worth the cost, especially with the possible downsides.

Poppinfresh wrote:

What I’m saying is that corporations are not an appropriate way to engage in capitalism. A system of limited partnership, even including silent partners, is far preferable. The key to my mind is that actual individuals be held accountable to the actions of a business.

One just has to look at the financial industry to see how right you are. When banks and trading firms were owned by partners they operated conservatively. No one wanted to risk the money of the owners. However, once banks and trading firms became publicly owned entities they could take on increasingly risky investments because they were only risking the money of some faceless investor, not a partner who would view that crazy bet as akin to stealing from them.

Poppinfresh wrote:

Any system could lead to a bad outcome. Men are not angels, and they can warp good ideas into bad outcomes ala Animal Farm. The question, to my mind, is how does one go about “living well by oppressing others”, and how does it fit in with libertarian ideas?

The problem is Libertarianism can't respond to bad outcomes. If the only justification for government is the need to enforce the principle of non-aggression, then you can't respond to, say, the rise of Fascism with a social welfare state that will keep people from becoming so poor they become desperate. BioShock may just have been a game, and the common wisdom is that it was all about Rand, but it was really a love letter to FDR and his statement "necessitous men are not free men."

Another poster and I had a conversation about this--what is the more 'libertarian' state: one where we tax people to hire a cop to arrest a criminal after they use violence against us, or one where we tax people to hire a social worker to get to someone before they become a criminal in the first place?

Which is closer to taxes as theft: taxes to build a jail to hold criminals, or taxes to build something that improves the community in some way that those people who would have wound up in jail choose something other than a life of crime?

Especially for the wing of the libertarians who are libertarians because they abhor violence, the waters become murky when the question is asked in those terms.

I would think that the best way to prevent aggregation of power is by keeping power centers small. Thus, instead of one large central government, you have many smaller centers. That’s standard libertarianism, and well hashed over ground. I don’t think it’s really worth talking about in depth.

I actually think it's not as well hashed over as we think. In theory, this is true. However, what about political science as an empirical science? If we go out and look at the real world, this idea--good in theory--doesn't seem so good in practice. The history of the United States from the Civil War onwards is basically about the one large central government forcing the states to honor individual rights. The Lochner era represents an exception, but on the whole it's been the Federal government that has kept people from experiencing oppression, often at the hands of the smaller state governments. It's the EU that seems to be dragging some states forwards in terms of recognizing human rights.

When we make governments small, we also make political campaigns small. We make it so that we need news coverage of fifty different elections as opposed to one big one. I'd also say that when we make a system federal, we add another layer of checks and balances by splitting up the sovereign power.

The other “power aggregator” is the modern day corporation, something which has an interesting history, but it hasn’t really been closely examined since the 1880’s or so. Most people, including modern-day libertarians, tend to use ‘corporation’ and ‘business’ interchangeably. I think that’s a big mistake.

On this, I very much agree. : D

BioShock may just have been a game, and the common wisdom is that it was all about Rand, but it was really a love letter to FDR and his statement "necessitous men are not free men."

You know, I gotta say, if you're using game fiction as evidence in an argument, your argument is not very strong.

Malor, the game was based on Rand's ideas, which were themselves propagated through didactic fiction. Your objection doesn't really actually make any arguments against his points, either.

Malor wrote:
BioShock may just have been a game, and the common wisdom is that it was all about Rand, but it was really a love letter to FDR and his statement "necessitous men are not free men."

You know, I gotta say, if you're using game fiction as evidence in an argument, your argument is not very strong.

FDR=Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a President of the United States who saw his New Deal reforms that put in place a social welfare safety net not only as the fair and good thing for the government to do to ease human suffering, but also as a matter of national security.

If FDR is a little too liberal for your taste,

"Necessitous men are not free men"

may I offer you some Hayek:

"Independence of mind or strength of character is rarely found among those who cannot be confident they will make their own way by their own effort." --Chapter 9, The Road to Serfdom?