this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
491 points (91.4% liked)
Political Memes
5486 readers
4754 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Both are necessary, there's an argument to strengthen the latter, and neither violate the NAP. I'm not one of those crazy ones 😁
These two statements contradict each other.
The NAP is a substitute for laws for "libertarians" who can't tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.
The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others. So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it's a violation of the NAP, so you're now entirely justified in shooting them.
The NAP is not a substitute for laws. I would argue that it is a framework, or set of principles by which laws are created. Also I do not understand what you are implying in the second part of that statement.
This is blatantly false. Libertarianism is fundamentally opposed to the idea of "the forcible imposition of your will upon others".
Can you define "something of which you disapprove"?
Not really. It only seems that way because most of us have only had experiences with the psychotic capitalist neo-libertarians of the Murray Rothbard school.
Actual libertarians, left libertarians. Can definitely get pretty squirrely when you get out on the fringes of ideologic anarchists etc. But many are fairly rational and even generally pro social democracy.
Right-wing libertarians are just an oxymoron. Under capitalism none of us can truly be free and we are all subject to the whims of wealth hoarding psychotic oligarch monkeys. They'll tell you that you're free not to work for them. The only problem is choosing not to work for them means choosing starvation, homelessness, and death. Which isn't the sort of thing that should be considered a choice in any civil society. But absolute necessities for unsustainable systems such as capitalism.
Libertarianism is, generally, mostly interested in freedom under the state. Libertarianism is at the core of capitalism; however, it must be made clear that a properly funcioning free-market requires some state regulation in order to ensure fair competition.
Not really. Libertarianism is mostly interested in freedom FROM the state. And freedom from oligarchs of all stripes. Especially the ones inherent to all forms of capitalism. Of which "free market" is the worst about. Capitalism is inherently incompatible with libertarianism. In the fact that you realistically can't choose not to be part of it. Under capitalism those of us that are not born into oligarchy or happened to luck into oligarchy end up basically slaves to the oligarchs for our wages and basic survival. There's no liberty in that.
Freedom from the state, to me, implies anarchy. I interperet your wording to say that a libertarian would want the freedom to opt out of governence -- this makes little to no sense. It is true in that a citizen should certainly have the freedom to emigrate, but I'm not convinced that this is what you were implying.
Why do you argue that the free market will always result in an oligarchy? I will say that a wholly unregulated free market will result in rampant anti-competitive behaviour which will end up being at the expense of the consumer. So, by that logic, some regulation is certainly necessary to ensure fair competition. This sort of well functioning free market should be the antidote to an oligarchy, unless the public wills it to be so.
I would argue that capitalism is founded upon the ideals of libertarianism.
You can choose to not participate in the free market -- create your own local commune where you all freely share your own private goods.
Again, no one is forcing you to play a part in the capitalist system. You could grab a farm out in the middle of nowhere, completely off the grid and live off of your own goods (assuming you have some means to cover a theoretical minimum of property tax). That is, of course, unless you are advocating for socialism in that the government should be providing for you.
No, the NAP is a principle not a substitute set of laws. It applies equally to an individual or to groups affected by a policy; the point is to lessen, not eliminate, 'agression' on balance and holistically. What you're describing is used not just by 'libertarians' but by anyone that doesn't want a law to apply to them.
Did you overlook the "non" in "non-aggression principle"?
You think that libertarians don't think laws apply to them...?
The NAP is only colorably considered a "principle" when one applies it toward one's own life and one's own choices. That's notably NOT the way that the "libertarians" who pay it the most lip service use it.
Instead, they apply it to other people's lives and other people's choices. And the explicit point is to measure the nominal accepability of those other people's lives and choices, and as necessary to provide colorable justification for imposing their wills on those other people in order to prevent or punish the "wrong" choices.
That's the exact function of law, simply transferred to a different concept.
Isn't this entire thread about "libertarians" vs libertarians? I'm not sure who you're trying to argue with but it certainly isn't me 😁
By "libertarians", are you referring to the non-libertarians that OP was outlining in their post?
Do you think roads, police and fire departments should have a pay-per-use system?
i think air should be bottled and sold on the free market.
The free market will set a fair price.
Lack of regulation will make sure it’s a low price and why would a company want to kill off its customers?
Sure if the market has healthy competition and the time horizon of the shareholders is long and if everyone is perfectly rational.
You know the 3 things each of which almost never happens.
Markets rarely have healthy competition. Usually for all practical purposes consumers have few if any choices where they can spend their money. Your supermarket might have a million items but you only have two supermarket and those million items are made by 10 companies.
Time horizons of shareholders are infamous for being short. With the larger they are the shorter they are. We live in a world where for decades stocks are bought and sold with high frequency trading. Long term means a business quarter.
Homo Economis never existed. If that abomination against all that is decent ever did form it would die off having no offspring. Humans smoke, they eat junk food, they buy boats, they lose their temper, they spend 45 billion dollars on Twatter and run it into the ground. This is why you don't leave things that matter to one asshole and just have faith that your invisible sky friend Market will correct it all eventually.
More customers dying means fewer people buying, therefore it's better to rent them. See, the invisible hand of the free market(swt) correcting itself.
And of course, if a company successfully corners the market and extracts value beyond the tolerance of some customers who eventually attempt to harm the company and force it out of business, the company is entirely justified in using assassination drones against the insurgent NAP-violators.
I would say that boycotting is contained within one's freedom of association. Unless you are talking about physical damages at which point an individual should have the right to protect their property, and this is also where tort law comes into play.
It’s what the free market wants.
All hail the free market.
Way ahead of you:
I generally just go straight to libraries as it’s not designed to trap/bait and it more often than not leads to productive discussions where we are both attempting to gain mutual understanding.
It’s not a trap or bait, it’s pointing out that it takes money to use and maintain these things.
My apologies, I realize it seems I implied you were baiting/trapping, but that wasn’t my intention. That being said I’m sure libertarians get examples like firefighters a LOT and they probably just glaze over and dismiss it as a result. But again, didn’t mean to imply that you were engaging in bad faith and such.
It’s because it is a fairly obvious example.
It’d be better to have a response that makes sense instead of ‘glazing over and dismissing it’.
Libraries are a great resource for keeping information free and protecting free speech. I think it's very reasonable for taxes to be used in ways that benefit the community as a whole, as that serves the people who pay the taxes.
You mean that the one group of people in the US who have no fear are the ones advocating for a government that protects no one?
Long, long ago, I was in the LP. I think what really woke me up was actually reading Ayn Rand, and....LOL - [1]. I was also doing lots of other reading of nonfiction at the time, thank goodness and her clunky sci-fi novel was just gawdawful in every single way. Also: growing up helped a lot, too.
I think around the same time, I was looking around at others I could see in the party and realized they seemed to be comprised, yeah, of mostly white males, but also: doomsday preppers, gold bugs, conspiracy theorists (and not the fun Robert Anton Wilson kind), thinly-veiled racists, Republicans that were miffed about some minor infraction they perceived in the Republican Party, and so on...and so I was done.
[1] Yeah, yeah I know all too much about the hair-splitting between Objectivists and LIbertarians. Also, when it comes to what many consider a formative text for their weird philosophy, that old quote is so very true:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Objectivists don't bother me much. No one is raised Objectivist, since Objectivists don't have children, which means that they become one by thinking about it, you can reason with someone who used reason to convince themselves of a position.
Unlike the short bus philosophy of Lolitarianism which is basically: I am a white het cis teenage male who has never faced real problems in my life, think I am invincible, and dont want to be told what to do. There is something about listening to someone who for 18 years has done nothing but consume resources, been protected from all the problems the rest of the world deals with, then whine about how they had to pay 10% of their salary to taxes.
If you think about it all children clothing is made for kids by kids. Maybe appreciate labor laws and welfare a bit after thinking about the horror of that sentence.
How many older Catholics do you know? How many older Objectivists do you know?
I was just pointing out that generally people don't change their religion but they can change their secular philosophy.
(in case it wasn't clear that was a "yes and")
Yes, if you consider existing in society "use". I think that's just a standard annual tax. Roads, that's tricky. Otherwise no.
In a Night-Watchman State, wouldn't a public police force be necessary?
No - roads are for the public good and should be supported by taxpayers that benefit with the possibility of 'penalizing' heavy vehicles that do more wear on roads.
I personally feel that roads are a complicated issue. A public police force is necessary to ensure the best equal application of the law. Fire departments are sort of a contextual issue -- I am inclined to treat fire departments as more of a utility.
We call those taxes
Sorry, didn't mention the others but generally things that are for the public benefit/use should be maintained through tax dollars without profit-pressure to extract 'value'. How does a fire department generate revenue? Or police? They don't and they shouldn't be designed to - they're a public utility for the supposed benefit of all in the community.
Firefighters should be a private enterprise and figure their revenue streams out themselves. They don't need the government telling them how to run a business.
Roads can easily made all private for-profit toll roads and people could decide for themselves if they want to use the McHighways or the WalMiles.
Roads are a complicated issue. I feel that roads fall under the idea of an "intrinsic monopoly" -- by their very existence, they create a monopoly, and are thus anti-competitive, and thus anti-free-market.
I would argue that it depends on context. Take the following two examples:
In the first example, a fire on one person's property can quickly threaten the property of many others around it. This danger could be argued to be so great that, if in a system where each individual must pay for fire services, and one individual does not, this can be seen as a threat to the livelihood of others -- a form of "aggression", if you will. It would be in everyone's best interest to have a municipal, or community fire department that the public pays for.
In the second example, no dwelling, or proprety is realistically a threat to any other. The only danger is to one's own property. As a result, it could be argued that, in such a situation, the individual could not be expected to pay for the fire service. If they wish to have its benefits, they could choose to pay, say, a subscription fee.
Generally, I would be inclined to agree, but one must tread cautiously.
Presumably, one could pay a subscription fee for the pleasure in having the added level of safety, similar to paying for insurance; however, it could be argued that, in certain scenarios, the lack of a publicly funded, mandatory fire department is an intrinsic threat from one to another. For example, if you look at a densely packed city, a fire can spread very rapidly, and indiscriminately. This would be funded through tax dollars. In other scenarios, for example, a rural, sparsely populated region of farmland, there could be no perceived intrinsic thread, so a mandatory fire department would not be necessary.
I would argue that it would be a conflict of interest for police to be payed. One could pay for their own private security, sure, but the state should provide the means to ensure that the rights, and freedoms of the individual are upheld. This is outlined in something called a Night-Watchman State.
This does raise the question if everyone must pay taxes for utilities even if they do not use them. I would personally argue that no an individual should not be expected to pay for a utility that they are not using.