Libertarians

[Jeff Robinson]

"The moral case for freedom". Fuck's sake.

The mowal case for fweedom.

 

[DotCommunist]

people who argue for a night watchman state forget that a lot of times night watchmen are having a really quality dream about beating Elvis at Texas Hold Em poker while the people your minimal state has left to rot are angry, hungry and robbing your house.

 

[8ball]

people who argue for a night watchman state forget that a lot of times night watchmen are having a really quality dream about beating Elvis at Texas Hold Em poker while the people your minimal state has left to rot are angry, hungry and robbing your house.

That only serves as an argument for a more heavily armed and effective watchman.

 

[DotCommunist]

That only serves as an argument for a more heavily armed and effective watchman.

exactly, and for maximum effectiveness they can be given amphetamine during shift times. Obviously this will mean that during down time they'll need some heavy opiate based medication in order to sleep. This regime will of course mean they need laxatives to shit and a broad-spectrum benzo to keep everything ticking over.

We could call it 'the tory party' They maniacally gab off at every waking hour, are twatted and moribund when you do need them and can largely be relied upon to shit all over you while twitching

 

[Jeff Robinson]

They were both horribly wrong; it's a salutary lesson on why philosophers shouldn't be let near politics. Applied philosophy of any sort is dangerous - they're even less trustworthy on ethics.

See any summary of Anarchy State and Utopia for Nozick's views. Essentially he starts from a position of absurdly prioritised negative rights, then spends a lot of effort explaining how an ultraminimal state (but no more) is justified by the existence of a dominant protection agency.

I really enjoyed reading that book. It's full of so many mad thought experiments involving utility monsters, experience machines, ray guns and killing 10,000 cows by clicking your fingers. As you say though, it's built on castles of sand.

 

[8ball]

I wonder how you would incentivise the police in this ultra-minimal state? If their function was to guarantee the sanctity of economic value, how could you justify squandering that on investigating the murder of a poor, old person when those same resources could quite possibly prevent the theft of a thousand widescreen tellies?

It would be far more efficient to use the power of the market and privatise the minimal Government.

 

[Quartz]

In theory yes

Well yes, but that's the problem with theories.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I wonder how you would incentivise the police in this ultra-minimal state? If their function was to guarantee the sanctity of economic value, how could you justify squandering that on investigating the murder of a poor, old person when those same resources could quite possibly prevent the theft of a thousand widescreen tellies?

It would be far more efficient to use the power of the market and privatise the minimal Government.

To be fair to Nozick, his minimal state is premised on upholding fundamental rights rather than economic efficiency. Private property is not defending because of its utility, but rather because Nozick regarded it as an extension of its owner. To take somebody's property through force is to violate the owner's rights. However, Nozick wants a State that does nothing to help its propertyless citizens from destitution and death, and one that would use its full force to violently suppress any attempts by them to rob from the rich. The Randians are even worse. In the talk I posted above, the speaker defends the genocide of the native americans on the basis that they did not own private property!

 

[butchersapron]

That's s basic tenet of classical economics, has been for centuries. They didn't improve the land so it was not only ok but a moral imperative to take it from them and improve it.

 

[BigTom]

Is support for trade unions incompatible with libertarianism? Cos i'm politely arguing with someone who I quite like and don't want to alienate, and he reckons it's not.

Who needs trade unions? An employment contract is a transaction entered into voluntarily, and by definition all voluntary transactions necessarily maximise the utility of all parties involved, or they wouldn't enter into the transaction would they.

Therefore, since the transaction between employee and employer achieves the optimal outcome for both parties, the addition of a trade union can only move us to a suboptimal solution.

I suppose if you wanted to join a trade union and pay your monthly dues to fat cat union bosses lazing around in their subsidised council housing then you can, but who wants to do that?

 

[likesfish]

They were both horribly wrong; it's a salutary lesson on why philosophers shouldn't be let near politics. Applied philosophy of any sort is dangerous - they're even less trustworthy on ethics.

See any summary of Anarchy State and Utopia for Nozick's views. Essentially he starts from a position of absurdly prioritised negative rights, then spends a lot of effort explaining how an ultraminimal state (but no more) is justified by the existence of a dominant protection agency.

Does'nt the equally apply to marxism?
Would explain how every so called marxist state has ended in blood and horror.
Marxist theory may have a lot going for it but going from theory to practice is a lot harder than people think.
Liberal Social democracy is a lot more messy has no overeaching grand philosphy and doesnt really hold together in theory just in practice achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

J S Mill and all who followed him are dangerous, too.

 

[brogdale]

Liberal Social democracy is a lot more messy has no overeaching grand philosphy and doesnt really hold together in theory just in practice achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

That you believe that amply demonstrates liberalism's ideological basis.

 

[brogdale]

I wonder how you would incentivise the police in this ultra-minimal state? If their function was to guarantee the sanctity of economic value, how could you justify squandering that on investigating the murder of a poor, old person when those same resources could quite possibly prevent the theft of a thousand widescreen tellies?

It would be far more efficient to use the power of the market and privatise the minimal Government.

AFAIR the Rothbardian argument saw the "nightwatchmen" motivated by profit, and competing to offer the "consumers" the most 'reliable', 'effective' service of protection and success in moving prosecution onto the privatised courts.

 

[likesfish]

Norway, sweden, finland, no fences or guards to keep people in.
No need for foreign armed adventures few imprisoned dissidents. swedens actually closing prisons as its got a shortage of prisoners
Compared to every so called workers state way better and compared to freedoms last best hope (sic)
People are happier and safer even if they cant carry an uzi to the supermarket.

Its far from perfect and may not be repeatable outside of the nordic nations but its fucking better than any other system so far tried.

 

[Nylock]

However, I think that under libertarianism trades unions would be rather different beasts from those of today.

Yep, they'd be extinct ones...

 

[nino_savatte]

His definition of capitalism early on appears to be use of slavery and the sequestering of huge amounts of natural resources by force.

In other words, it's the moral framework of the brute and the bully.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Yep, they'd be extinct ones...

Is this why right wingers always refer to unions as dinosaurs?

 

[8ball]

In other words, it's the moral framework of the brute and the bully.

But with the imposition of market-based discipline for the lower orders

 

[butchersapron]

This is basic crude marxism isn't it? Historical primitive accumulation and that.

 

[love detective]

To be fair to Nozick, his minimal state is premised on upholding fundamental rights rather than economic efficiency. Private property is not defending because of its utility, but rather because Nozick regarded it as an extension of its owner. To take somebody's property through force is to violate the owner's rights. However, Nozick wants a State that does nothing to help its propertyless citizens from destitution and death, and one that would use its full force to violently suppress any attempts by them to rob from the rich. The Randians are even worse. In the talk I posted above, the speaker defends the genocide of the native americans on the basis that they did not own private property!

Out of interest, what is there in Nozick on this that Locke hadn't got to a good three hundred years before?

And also from the little i've read off him he does seem to get caught up in circles with this. As while his minimal state is premised on upholding fundamental rights rather than economic efficiency he has to use economic efficiency to 'justify' the existence of those rights in the first place - so all of a sudden when it comes to his 'Lockian Proviso' these supposed inert, natural and fundamental rights which he is supposedly a proponent off can only be justified on the consequentialist grounds of efficiency

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Out of interest, what is there in Nozick on this that Locke hadn't got to a good three hundred years before?

And also from the little i've read off him he does seem to get caught up in circles with this. As while his minimal state is premised on upholding fundamental rights rather than economic efficiency he has to use economic efficiency to 'justify' the existence of those rights in the first place - so all of a sudden when it comes to his 'Lockian Proviso' these supposed inert, natural and fundamental rights which he is supposedly a proponent off can only be justified on the consequentialist grounds of efficiency

Yes, completely agree. Nozick's defence of the minimal state is explicitly Lockean, with a bit Kantianism and the techniques of analytical philosophy thrown in. Nozick follows Locke in recognising the natural rights to life, liberty and property on the basis that individuals own themselves. Whilst this is fairly persuasive in relation to the rights to life and liberty, Nozick runs into trouble in trying to find a basis for a natural property right in unowned things. Again following Locke, his argument is that it is the mixing of ones labour with that unowned property that confers a natural right in it. Yet he is unable to provide a convincing metaphysical account of how mixing labour with x gives rise to a property right in x. So he falls back on the Lockean proviso that as long as the circumstances of others are not worsened through original acquisition there is no reason not to afford property rights. It is here that he smuggles in the consequentialism: the system of private property ownership will not fall afoul of the Lockean proviso because it increases the overall social product etc. Nozick's argument would be that this is not consequentialism - it's rather an argument designed to show that those who don't own property cannot complain that their rights have been infringed. But I agree with you that that's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

This is basic crude marxism isn't it? Historical primitive accumulation and that.

True, but didn't Marx say that primitive accumulation was capitalism's 'dirty secret' or some such thing? Most of capitalism's ideologues today try to hush up the violent origins of capitalism - or present them as aberrations of the past that have little to do with our present system. What's interesting about the Randians is that they are so upfront in defending and justifying these actions. In some ways they are amongst the most honest and consistent defenders of capitalism, which is probably why they'll remain at the margins of political life.

 

[J Ed]

This is what libertarians actually believe

The solution to racism is to pay black people half of what you pay white people for the same work

http://www.turningpointusa.net/greed-ultimate-enemy-racism/

One day, one of these firms looks at the market conditions and realizes something: “I’m making some good money and all, and I am hiring as few black people as possible. But, you know, these wages of white people ($10/h) are just a lot higher than those of black people ($5/h). Hiring all these white people is hurting my profits. If I were to switch to hiring more black people, I could have higher profits.” And so this firm swallows its discriminatory pride and switches to hiring more black labor, since it’s cheaper. This results in significantly higher profits for the firm, giving it an advantage over other firms. These other firms, after some time, realize that they’re losing customers to the less-discriminating firm down the street, which can sell products more cheaply since it buys black labor.

 

[SpineyNorman]

This is what libertarians actually believe

The solution to racism is to pay black people half of what you pay white people for the same work

http://www.turningpointusa.net/greed-ultimate-enemy-racism/

That's really quite special

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Is that what the article says? The quote just says that market forces eventually overcome prejudice and discrimination. That's silly, of course, because it ignores the marketability of cultural and social capital in a racist society. But it's not the point that J Ed claims to see.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Is that what the article says? The quote just says that market forces eventually overcome prejudice and discrimination. That's silly, of course, because it ignores the marketability of cultural and social capital in a racist society. But it's not the point that J Ed claims to see.

It sort of is though isn't it? The starting point, at least, is to hire black workers for half as much money as white ones. Hyper-exploitation as the first step towards black liberation lol

Why am I not especially surprised to see you defending this crap?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Why am I not especially surprised to see you defending this crap?

Presumably because you're too stupid to read what I wrote.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Presumably because you're too stupid to read what I wrote.

Nope, try again. Hint: it is possible to defend something even when you openly state you don't agree with it - like you did just then.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Nope, try again. Hint: it is possible to defend something even when you openly state you don't agree with it - like you did just then.

So you're actually defending me? Okay, you're a Cretan and not a cretin, but I don't really have time to play paradoxes.