Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

recent "trend" of Libertarianism

Announcements Posted on
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    "'In competition individual ambition serves the common good" - is really a great quote. But in reality, common good in capitalism is created by coincidence and not on purpose, and even only sometimes. I may have not made clear what I meant.
    Yes. The labourer cares not for the common good. The business man cares not for the common good. They care for their own interest. But by doing so they serve the interests of others. It is enlightened self interest.

    This is what advocates of capitalism realise. It is not about intentions of the people. But the implications. Man kind has improved his state far more effectually through the market than through charity (not that I am saying charity is bad).

    Furthermore, the biggest wealth is created by exploiting workers all across the globe. Really, common good?
    Tosh. Marxist tripe that has been thoroughly refuted. That labour theory of value is complete nonsense.


    Well, by calling socialists "brutish thinkers" you showed how ignorant you are. Socialists recognize price mechanism, but it is not needed in socialism, because there would be planning (I do not mean soviet type planning) by demand. Markets will exists, but it will be much more different compared to what we have now.
    Precisely. Brutish thinking. The plan. Control. Laws. Government. Unlike the subtle argument of capitalist advocates that allows people to freely and spontaneously cooperate which creates a much more prosperous order than could be possibly be organised deliberately.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JacobW)
    (2) that the benefits of not attending to your own healthcare adequately are more salient and more immediate than the costs and people cannot therefore be trusted to make rational decisions about it?
    This argument is ridiculous. The thing that affects your health more than hospital treatment, is your diet. Ask anyone who is into body building or any doctor and they will tell you that what you eat has a far greater effect on health than how long you spend in the gym. Not drinking, not smoking can also increase your health massively. Yet there is no government agency that is given a monopoly on the provision of food, and also rations out food to make people more healthy - would you support a move in this direction, seeing as people clearly "cannot be... trusted to make rational decisions" about what they eat?
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I used to be fairly libertarian. Life beats it out of you.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    This argument is ridiculous. The thing that affects your health more than hospital treatment, is your diet. Ask anyone who is into body building or any doctor and they will tell you that what you eat has a far greater effect on health than how long you spend in the gym. Not drinking, not smoking can also increase your health massively. Yet there is no government agency that is given a monopoly on the provision of food, and also rations out food to make people more healthy - would you support a move in this direction, seeing as people clearly "cannot be... trusted to make rational decisions" about what they eat?
    I'll treat the objection as a recucto ad absurdum argument against the possibility of deriving a normative conclusion about government intervention from the economic analysis, not a criticism of the analysis itself. I presume you accept that people make bad decisions about costs and benefits when their salience diverges--plenty of overweight people regret eating too much or excercising too little, to use your example.

    Food and healthcare are not analogous for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, the salience issue applies to both, but there are huge number of other considerations. It's easier to have a competitive market for food than for healthcare since there are fewer economies of scale and so less tendency towards concentrations of market power; regulating what people eat would entail a far greater restriction of people's liberty than simply providing free healthcare. Diet is a matter of lifestyle choice in a way that the decision about whether or not to have a tripple heart bypass isn't.

    I wouldn't object in principle to government regulation or provision of food; but consumer rationality is not the only issue, and for the reasons explained above, I think the case for state control of healthcare is far stronger. And that's if we assume that consumer rationality is a problem of equal weight in both markets: but as weak-willed as people can be when trying to diet, we have a greater understanding of the effect dietry decisions have on our well-being than the effect certain operations or treatments will have. Everyone knows eating too much fat and sugar will make you overweight; few people who aren't medical profesionals have the faintest idea how a bypass operation works or what the costs and benefits of having one are, and you can bet doctors in a free market would exploit this imabalance of knowledge to sell people healthcare they don't need.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)

    ''In competition individual ambition serves the common good''
    But have you not watched -A Beautiful Mind-

    "if we all go for the blonde...."

    If everyone goes for the blonde, they block each other and no one wins. The brunettes will feel hurt as a second choice and categorically reject advances. Everyone loses.

    But what if everyone goes for a brunette? Then each person will succeed, and everyone ends up with a good option.

    socialism was supposed to get to communism after a while, and communism was supposed to be completely state free and classless.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)

    Yes. The labourer cares not for the common good. The business man cares not for the common good. They care for their own interest. But by doing so they serve the interests of others. It is enlightened self interest.
    they do not always serve the interests of others.

    adam smith said of the division of labor

    "The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it."

    he called it mental mutilation.

    self interest can be very destructive,

    just think of exxon.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    they do not always serve the interests of others.

    adam smith said of the division of labor

    "The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it."

    he called it mental mutilation.

    self interest can be very destructive,

    just think of exxon.
    Yes, that bailout and subsidy junkie exxon is really operating in the free market :rolleyes:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    But have you not watched -A Beautiful Mind-

    "if we all go for the blonde...."

    If everyone goes for the blonde, they block each other and no one wins. The brunettes will feel hurt as a second choice and categorically reject advances. Everyone loses.

    But what if everyone goes for a brunette? Then each person will succeed, and everyone ends up with a good option.

    socialism was supposed to get to communism after a while, and communism was supposed to be completely state free and classless.
    Eh okay? This is a little bit of really basic game theory applied to picking up women and is meant to be the definitive argument in favour of socialism/communism how?
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    But have you not watched -A Beautiful Mind-

    "if we all go for the blonde...."

    If everyone goes for the blonde, they block each other and no one wins. The brunettes will feel hurt as a second choice and categorically reject advances. Everyone loses.

    But what if everyone goes for a brunette? Then each person will succeed, and everyone ends up with a good option.

    socialism was supposed to get to communism after a while, and communism was supposed to be completely state free and classless.
    The market economy is not the same as trying to get laid.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Yes. The labourer cares not for the common good. The business man cares not for the common good. They care for their own interest. But by doing so they serve the interests of others. It is enlightened self interest.

    This is what advocates of capitalism realise. It is not about intentions of the people. But the implications. Man kind has improved his state far more effectually through the market than through charity (not that I am saying charity is bad).



    Tosh. Marxist tripe that has been thoroughly refuted. That labour theory of value is complete nonsense.




    Precisely. Brutish thinking. The plan. Control. Laws. Government. Unlike the subtle argument of capitalist advocates that allows people to freely and spontaneously cooperate which creates a much more prosperous order than could be possibly be organised deliberately.
    Of course laborer care for their own interests, but that is because they have to. You don't work - you will starve. No capitalist system allow you work only for common good. If you try - you will find yourself in poverty.

    Well, in that case classical liberalism is complete nonsense too. If you think, that Marxist labour theory of value is nonsense, well I'm afraid you are denying the fact that work is source of value. Yes, financial institutions changed the original theory of value, but it does not mean it is wrong. Furthermore, there is no evidence that financial markets generate value.

    Government and planning will be nothing like it was till today. Of course, you are stubborn and when you hear "socialist government", "planning" you are only thinking about Stalin sitting in his chair and writing numbers of how many toilet covers everyone will need.
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    they do not always serve the interests of others.

    adam smith said of the division of labor

    "The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it."

    he called it mental mutilation.

    self interest can be very destructive,

    just think of exxon.
    What has actually happened to the common man in capitalist nations though?

    He spends less of his life working, he has more choice in the jobs he does and he has access to more capital. This has all happened over years and years due to the productive forces that capitalism unleashes.

    What was true of Adam Smith's time is no longer true of our time and it is because of capitalism that men live beyond 60. That they have weekends off. That they can send their children to school. That one man can support an entire family.
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Of course laborer care for their own interests, but that is because they have to. You don't work - you will starve. No capitalist system allow you work only for common good. If you try - you will find yourself in poverty.
    If the labourer cares for himself he must by defintion serve the interests of others. If the labourer wants some food he must produce something which the holder of food wants. He must serve somebody else.

    That is the miracle of capitalism. If guides peoples behaviour to serve the interests of others without being told what to do by somebody else.
    Well, in that case classical liberalism is complete nonsense too. If you think, that Marxist labour theory of value is nonsense, well I'm afraid you are denying the fact that work is source of value.
    Work is not a source of value. That much is obvious. I just worked realy hard and dug up a hufe hole in my garden. I worked bloody hard. Did not produce anything of value. Just a massive hole.

    Yes, financial institutions changed the original theory of value, but it does not mean it is wrong. Furthermore, there is no evidence that financial markets generate value.
    You say what mate?

    Government and planning will be nothing like it was till today. Of course, you are stubborn and when you hear "socialist government", "planning" you are only thinking about Stalin sitting in his chair and writing numbers of how many toilet covers everyone will need.
    I just think of some central authority planning and controlling production and distribution. I do not care who or what does it, it will fail. The new favourite of the socialists is that a computer program will organise everything, because a computer is not a person so it will work. Ofcourse this still forgoes the problem of centralising decentralised information and the problem of who will actually program the computer.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Well, in that case classical liberalism is complete nonsense too. If you think, that Marxist labour theory of value is nonsense, well I'm afraid you are denying the fact that work is source of value. Yes, financial institutions changed the original theory of value, but it does not mean it is wrong. Furthermore, there is no evidence that financial markets generate value.
    On value:



    I'm not entirely sure why you're equating financial institutions creating value with classical liberalism?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    If the labourer cares for himself he must by defintion serve the interests of others. If the labourer wants some food he must produce something which the holder of food wants. He must serve somebody else.
    "If the labourer wants some food he must produce something which the holder of food wants." - cool story, but why does capitalist takes labourers commodity and gives only little share?

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    That is the miracle of capitalism. If guides peoples behaviour to serve the interests of others without being told what to do by somebody else.
    Directly nobody is telling you that, but capitalism is like a man pointing a gun at you. You know that if you don't work - you will starve or in other words, if you don't work - gun will shoot.

    Moreover, Marx once wrote “One’s person perfection became everyones perfection clause”. Everyone will work for common good because they will not chase money, but they will try to express themselves.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LRTr9NsFCZ...00/maslow1.jpg This is motivation pyramid. In order to reach higher pyramid level it is required to fulfill lower levels. (some levels could be jumped)

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Work is not a source of value. That much is obvious. I just worked realy hard and dug up a hufe hole in my garden. I worked bloody hard. Did not produce anything of value. Just a massive hole.
    Without work there wouldn’t be value. If you dig hole for 2 hours, value of that hole is insofar as for the average member of society it takes to dig a hole (let’s say 3 hours). Just because it is useless It doesn’t mean it is not worth anything.

    Diamonds cost a lot because they are hard to find and it takes times to process them, not because people think they are expensive.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    You say what mate?
    What I meant is that original Marxist theory of value is outdated, since stock markets, speculation has major role in economy, but it does not show that theory is wrong.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    I just think of some central authority planning and controlling production and distribution. I do not care who or what does it, it will fail. The new favourite of the socialists is that a computer program will organise everything, because a computer is not a person so it will work. Ofcourse this still forgoes the problem of centralising decentralised information and the problem of who will actually program the computer.
    I do not want to upset you, but planning is already being done by corporations and companies, therefore there is anarchy in production (which causes overproduction – crises).

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    On value:



    I'm not entirely sure why you're equating financial institutions creating value with classical liberalism?
    I talked about financial institutions to show that Marxist theory of value is not wrong, just a little bit outdated.
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    "If the labourer wants some food he must produce something which the holder of food wants." - cool story, but why does capitalist takes labourers commodity and gives only little share?
    Because the 'capitalist' has capital which he allows the labourer to use. This increases the productivity of the labourer, which the labour takes some of the cut of, and the 'capitalist' takes the rest.




    Directly nobody is telling you that, but capitalism is like a man pointing a gun at you. You know that if you don't work - you will starve or in other words, if you don't work - gun will shoot.


    Moreover, Marx once wrote “One’s person perfection became everyones perfection clause”. Everyone will work for common good because they will not chase money, but they will try to express themselves.
    You cannot know what the common good is. I do not know what you want. You do not know what I want. Nobody has any idea what the 7,000,000,000 across the world wants. It is only the price mechanism that can coordinate all of these people peacefully.

    Capitalism is not about expressing yourself, it is about serving your fellow man.





    Without work there wouldn’t be value. If you dig hole for 2 hours, value of that hole is insofar as for the average member of society it takes to dig a hole (let’s say 3 hours). Just because it is useless It doesn’t mean it is not worth anything.
    Re-read that. Brilliant sir. Either you are an honest guy or you are a complete idiot (probably both) because you could not even avoid that land mine.

    Diamonds cost a lot because they are hard to find and it takes times to process them, not because people think they are expensive.


    What I meant is that original Marxist theory of value is outdated, since stock markets, speculation has major role in economy, but it does not show that theory is wrong.
    Stock markets have nothing to do with it. Marx was wrong. Simply as. The labour theory of value is false. Therefore all the conclusions Marx derives from that faulty theory are also false. Which is basically his entire thesis.


    I do not want to upset you, but planning is already being done by corporations and companies, therefore there is anarchy in production (which causes overproduction – crises).
    I plan when to have my dinner, what is your point?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Because the 'capitalist' has capital which he allows the labourer to use. This increases the productivity of the labourer, which the labour takes some of the cut of, and the 'capitalist' takes the rest.
    Really? Somehow I think it is completely different. Capitalist take the biggest share, while labour takes what is left. Look at corporations, which opens factory in third world country and pay to labour as little as possible, while making billions of profit.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    You cannot know what the common good is. I do not know what you want. You do not know what I want. Nobody has any idea what the 7,000,000,000 across the world wants. It is only the price mechanism that can coordinate all of these people peacefully.

    Capitalism is not about expressing yourself, it is about serving your fellow man.
    Common good is everything from supplying everyone with a home, food, clothes to education, health.

    Exactly, capitalism is not about expressing yourself, if it would be - capitalism would not be such a bad thing.

    In capitalism there are people who fall into despair, mainly because they do not have/had opportunities to do that. Is it really a good system, where you can't be an engineer, because where you born education is below standard?

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Re-read that. Brilliant sir. Either you are an honest guy or you are a complete idiot (probably both) because you could not even avoid that land mine.
    As a person who even dedicated his profile name to classical liberalism, calling someone idiot is really childish.

    Diamonds costs a lot, because like I said they are hard to find and it takes time to process them, but they are useless. You hole is useless too, but it takes time to dig it just like diamonds.

    I'm afraid, you're not familiar with Marxist labour theory of value, or familiar only by watching videos on YouTube made by pro-capitalism "economists".


    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    I just think of some central authority planning and controlling production and distribution. I do not care who or what does it, it will fail. The new favourite of the socialists is that a computer program will organise everything, because a computer is not a person so it will work. Ofcourse this still forgoes the problem of centralising decentralised information and the problem of who will actually program the computer.
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    I plan when to have my dinner, what is your point?
    Bolded point. You see know? I bet you didn't see that coming.

    Planning is already being done, so while you advocate classic liberalism keep in mind that in you own words "it will fail".

    At least central planning would not cause constant crises and depressions.
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    Really? Somehow I think it is completely different. Capitalist take the biggest share, while labour takes what is left. Look at corporations, which opens factory in third world country and pay to labour as little as possible, while making billions of profit.
    Fantastic. Nice assertions there. The fallacy here is to assume the labour earnt all of the profits.

    Labour takes wages.
    Firms takes profits. Which is revenue minus costs. Of which wages are some of the cost.

    People accept wages because they do not want to be exposed to the volatility of profits. It is so silly when you hear people saying 'the workers should get the profits', the workers do not want profits (because profits can be losses). For example workers can ask to be paid in terms of shares in some companies (and the company would probably prefer that form of payment as it does not impose immediate costs and is linked to growth and it tax efficient) but the worker prefers wages.

    Exactly, capitalism is not about expressing yourself, if it would be - capitalism would not be such a bad thing.
    You are expressing yourself right now, what is your point?

    In capitalism there are people who fall into despair, mainly because they do not have/had opportunities to do that. Is it really a good system, where you can't be an engineer, because where you born education is below standard?
    Anybody can take an open university course or study on the Khan Academy in the UK.

    As a person who even dedicated his profile name to classical liberalism, calling someone idiot is really childish.
    Sorry.

    Diamonds costs a lot, because like I said they are hard to find and it takes time to process them, but they are useless. You hole is useless too, but it takes time to dig it just like diamonds.
    Suppose the holes and the diamonds took the same amount of time to create (by Marx's theory), they are worth the same amount. As the amount of labour that went into the is the same....

    Bolded point. You see know? I bet you didn't see that coming.
    When I wrote it, I genuinely thought. ''This guy will confuse central government planning with decentralised planning by individuals and firms''. And guess what......
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I honestly thought Libertarians were made up to scare children! No one thinks like they do?....nah, noway nice try OP.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Left Hand Drive)
    I honestly thought Libertarians were made up to scare children! No one thinks like they do? nah, noway nice try OP.
    Y u no makey sense k?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Fantastic. Nice assertions there. The fallacy here is to assume the labour earnt all of the profits.

    Labour takes wages.
    Firms takes profits. Which is revenue minus costs. Of which wages are some of the cost.

    People accept wages because they do not want to be exposed to the volatility of profits. It is so silly when you hear people saying 'the workers should get the profits', the workers do not want profits (because profits can be losses). For example workers can ask to be paid in terms of shares in some companies (and the company would probably prefer that form of payment as it does not impose immediate costs and is linked to growth and it tax efficient) but the worker prefers wages.
    Labour do earn all the profit. Managers, accountants and others help to maximize the profit, but capitalist, who is only owning the capital, is often doing nothing.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    You are expressing yourself right now, what is your point?
    I expressing my freedom of speech. But I can't apply for LSE, Kings universities, because in my home country education level is not worth enough for LSE and they will reject me without consideration.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Suppose the holes and the diamonds took the same amount of time to create (by Marx's theory), they are worth the same amount. As the amount of labour that went into the is the same....
    (Original post by Lukfisto)
    If you dig hole for 2 hours, value of that hole is insofar as for the average member of society it takes to dig a hole (let’s say 3 hours). Just because it is useless It doesn’t mean it is not worth anything.
    Please, read what I wrote, if not discussion is not possible.

    Hole is hole, diamond is diamond. Diamond is worth insofar as for the average member of society takes to process a diamond.

    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    When I wrote it, I genuinely thought. ''This guy will confuse central government planning with decentralised planning by individuals and firms''. And guess what......
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    I just think of some central authority planning and controlling production and distribution. I do not care who or what does it, it will fail. The new favourite of the socialists is that a computer program will organise everything, because a computer is not a person so it will work. Ofcourse this still forgoes the problem of centralising decentralised information and the problem of who will actually program the computer.
    That's the difference between socialist planning and companies planning? - Central planning will not have constant crises.

    Also, as I see you understand only one type of planning. The central planning, which was used in Soviet Union. South Korea, Taiwan used "central planning" for heavy industries some time in their history to escape poverty. The similar thing can be used in socialism, where big projects, heavy industries are planned centrally, but for other industries planning is being made by local small government.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 14, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.