Why would Libertarianism stop corporations from being unethical? Watch

Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 9 years ago
#21
(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
Libertarianism is a cold and inhuman thing ... :no:
... Because? I mean, emotional adjectives are really good except when you realise you can apply them to any ideology given the right circumstance.

Re: Libertarian duties concerning the exploited
If I was to think of the three wars in which all Libertarians must surely support or have supported one side, they would be the US War of Independence, the US Civil War (the CSA) and the Rhodesian War of Independence (Rhodesia), and interestingly, popular conception would have us painted as supporting the exploiters in the latter two instances...
0
reply
Mr_K_Dilkington
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#22
Report 9 years ago
#22
(Original post by Bagration)
the US Civil War (the CSA)
I definitely wouldn't say support is the right word for how libertarians should view the CSA if they are to be consistent. I'd much rather say I wouldn't support the northern aggression rather than I support the Southern states. Saying that without qualification is going to get you in a lot of trouble outside libertarian circles :yep:
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 9 years ago
#23
(Original post by Jay Riall)
I definitely wouldn't say support is the right word for how libertarians should view the CSA if they are to be consistent. I'd much rather say I wouldn't support the northern aggression rather than I support the Southern states. Saying that without qualification is going to get you in a lot of trouble outside libertarian circles :yep:
Meh, I don't see the War between the States as a war over slavery. Slavery was one issue that was played from mid to late war, but it wasn't started as an abolitionist war and was scarcely fought as one. 80% of federal taxes came from the south, despite most of the population, industry, and commerce being in the North... the war was unconstitutional, the South was legally entitled to secede, and the North committed all sorts of violations and atrocities on the road to victory. Southerners were defending their homes and their rights from Northern aggression. Simple as.
0
reply
Mr_K_Dilkington
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#24
Report 9 years ago
#24
(Original post by Bagration)
Meh, I don't see the War between the States as a war over slavery. Slavery was one issue that was played from mid to late war, but it wasn't started as an abolitionist war and was scarcely fought as one. 80% of federal taxes came from the south, despite most of the population, industry, and commerce being in the North... the war was unconstitutional, the South was legally entitled to secede, and the North committed all sorts of violations and atrocities on the road to victory. Southerners were defending their homes and their rights from Northern aggression. Simple as.
I know all that, it wasn't my point. My point was that without qualifying support for the South; why and where your support lies with them, you are going to experience very negative reactions to your views. There is such a myth built up around the war - people simply believe it was fought to end slavery and that is that, that you really can't object to it without qualification if you want to actually have a productive conversation about it.

btw, have you read any of Tom DiLorenzo's books about the Lincoln or The War of Northern Aggression?
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#25
Report 9 years ago
#25
(Original post by Jay Riall)
I know all that, it wasn't my point. My point was that without qualifying support for the South; why and where your support lies with them, you are going to experience very negative reactions to your views. There is such a myth built up around the war - people simply believe it was fought to end slavery and that is that, that you really can't object to it without qualification if you want to actually have a productive conversation about it.

btw, have you read any of Tom DiLorenzo's books about the Lincoln or The War of Northern Aggression?
I was going to but don't have the money or time, lol.

Oh, and you're right, definetly, but I tend to find many people don't know jackall about the War Between the States. For instance, they generally think that slavery was outlawed federally before the war...
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 9 years ago
#26
I think the only consistent libertarian position to take was that of Lysander Spooner (a real libertarian hero/badass, who used to be my avatar. Seriously, look up some of the **** he was involved in if you don't believe me...) He was, to put it mildly, not popular on either side: he was a steadfast abolitionist ("in 1858, Spooner circulated a "Plan for the Abolition of Slavery," calling for the use of guerrilla warfare against slaveholders by black slaves and non-slaveholding free Southerners, with aid from Northern abolitionists. Spooner also participated in an aborted plot to free John Brown after his capture following the failed raid on Harper's Ferry, Virginia." ) and yet he supported the right of the CSA to secede. Seems to me that this is right in every respect.
0
reply
sconzey
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#27
Report 9 years ago
#27
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
Lysander Spooner
Who is featured on the back of the nickel in ancap north america in the Probability Broach.
0
reply
Sariya
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#28
Report 9 years ago
#28
The magical ideological Pixie Dust would transform all CEOs into tree-hugging animal lovers who live to protect the environment and serve the interests of the community.
0
reply
rajandkwameali
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 9 years ago
#29
What is unethical behaviour here? Is it duping consumers? I suppose this is a concern, since perfect information exists in few markets. But since perfect information doesn't exist much, then consumer firms could exist to fill in the gap.

Does unethical here mean not being socially responsible? Well even now, CSR is largely voluntary. There is no law in the UK mandating firms to adopt CSR.
0
reply
Mr_K_Dilkington
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#30
Report 9 years ago
#30
(Original post by AirRaven)
The magical ideological Pixie Dust would transform all CEOs into tree-hugging animal lovers who live to protect the environment and serve the interests of the community.
You realize that's actually an even better argument against government right? Politicians, bureaucrats and regulators are the same species as CEOs. Just because someone has the talent to win a popularity contest every 4-5 years (or not in the case of many bureaucrats) doesn't turn them into a benevolent, selfless philosopher-king who only has our best interests at heart. It's actually a much better argument than the argument you use against CEOs - CEOs don't have the use of force to get people to do what they want.

You just create more problems that you solve. People are inherently greedy and bad, so what do we do? Create a monopoly on the use of force where the greedy and bad will swarm like flies round ****. Give them the power to take whatever money they want and spend it how they want, the power to send people to war, the power to take people's freedoms away, the power to tell us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. What could ever go wrong!
0
reply
Collingwood
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 9 years ago
#31
I think the question rather misses the point. 'Ethics' are not agreed between people and cannot be objectively determined. Libertarianism is a pragmatic solution to this problem, essentially by stating clearly when it is and is not acceptable to use violence to settle disputes between individuals, and to do so in such a way that provides each individual with the maximal legal independence which is compatible with everyone else being equally so endowed. In so far as it is not acceptable to use violence to stop them, people are free to set their own morality. So I don't really accept the premise of the question: according to any arbitrary person, there may be nothing stopping unethical practice and huge amounts of it happening without anyone even trying to stop it. Consider extremist environmentalists who would like to shut down all industry, for instance, or population control advocates who want birth licences and mandatory abortions, or eugenecists... the very purpose of libertarianism is that individuals cannot be subjected to these peoples' whims when it concerns their own person and property.

(Original post by AirRaven)
The magical ideological Pixie Dust would transform all CEOs into tree-hugging animal lovers who live to protect the environment and serve the interests of the community.
Glad to see that Oxford's PPE programme accepts only the most promising potential statesmen and academics :rolleyes:
0
reply
Sariya
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#32
Report 9 years ago
#32
(Original post by Collingwood)
I think the question rather misses the point. 'Ethics' are not agreed between people and cannot be objectively determined. Libertarianism is a pragmatic solution to this problem, essentially by stating clearly when it is and is not acceptable to use violence to settle disputes between individuals, and to do so in such a way that provides each individual with the maximal legal independence which is compatible with everyone else being equally so endowed. In so far as it is not acceptable to use violence to stop them, people are free to set their own morality. So I don't really accept the premise of the question: according to any arbitrary person, there may be nothing stopping unethical practice and huge amounts of it happening without anyone even trying to stop it. Consider extremist environmentalists who would like to shut down all industry, for instance, or population control advocates who want birth licences and mandatory abortions, or eugenecists... the very purpose of libertarianism is that individuals cannot be subjected to these peoples' whims when it concerns their own person and property.
And, on the flipside, they also can't be subjected to Government Action trying to, say, rein in pollution levels for the sake of the health of the population. Or, on that note, to rein in Climate Change- the examples of factory owners worldwide should be sufficient proof that sans Government Action, absolutely nothing will be done about the problems of Greenhouse Gas emissions.

The same was true of workplace conditions in the past, if you want to take the AGW-sceptic route- until it became illegal not to have machinery guards and unhealthy working conditions, the overwhelming majority of factories simply disregarded ethical concerns and ploughed on towards the path of least cost.

The inconvenience of the few versus the happiness of the many- seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Lofty principle's fine, so long as it doesn't lead to hideous consequences in the real world- as the Libertarian philosophy almost inevitably does.

(Original post by Collingwood)
Glad to see that Oxford's PPE programme accepts only the most promising potential statesmen and academics :rolleyes:
I love people who can't read signatures, don't you?
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#33
Report 9 years ago
#33
Libertarianism is no more about lofty principle than any other ideology. As much as you can point to any single historical aspect of Libertarianism (apparently [Look at factories one hundred and fifty years ago! They were so terrible...]) and say that it didn't work exactly as designed (although, to be fair, it wasn't Libertarians who designed any political system in Europe at that time) means absolutely nothing about an ideology. There are dozens of examples where Social Democracy has failed the West and there are dozens of examples of Social Democrats espousing what you might call "lofty principles." Don't put Libertarianism on this pedestal of extremism & ideology. It's very much the same as any other ideology.

So, let's take a few of the hideous consequences of Social Democracy. Drug control? Billions of pounds wasted on fighting drugs every year, and narcotics and opiates still flow freely on the streets of Britain. Thousands of people put in prison or fined tremendous amounts every year for the crime of supplying, or even carrying, drugs. People dying on the streets or committing crimes because they can't get their next hit because the black market has octupled the price of drugs. The state caring for all its citizens from the cradle to the grave? Doesn't sound like it to me. Tell that to the heroin addict who's thrown in jail or forced into rehab rather than being allowed to voluntarily purchase his narcotics.

Social Democracy might stop corporations from acting unethically (and that's contentious, too. Is Microsoft acting ethically when it enforces its intellectual property?) but Libertarianism stops governments from acting unethically. If we have to pick one, all the history of freedom urges us to choose the latter.
0
reply
Lefty Leo
Badges: 10
#34
Report 9 years ago
#34
(Original post by Bagration)
Social Democracy might stop corporations from acting unethically (and that's contentious, too. Is Microsoft acting ethically when it enforces its intellectual property?) but Libertarianism stops governments from acting unethically. If we have to pick one, all the history of freedom urges us to choose the latter.
Lol err, no.

Governments aren't this separate institution that you Libertarians seem to regard it as. Government is simply a natural development of people who don't want to stand by and let anarchy develop, which, in most societies, are the vast majority. If "government" as we know it today (the result of thousands of years of social, economic, and educational progress) were to be abolished, we would simply end up in a feudal or tribal society with another form of "government".
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#35
Report 9 years ago
#35
(Original post by Lefty Leo)
Lol err, no.
No what? No Governments don't act unethically? Surely you're joking...

(Original post by Lefty Leo)
Governments aren't this separate institution that you Libertarians seem to regard it as. Government is simply a natural development of people who don't want to stand by and let anarchy develop, which, in most societies, are the vast majority. If "government" as we know it today (the result of thousands of years of social, economic, and educational progress) were to be abolished, we would simply end up in a feudal or tribal society with another form of "government".
1. I have never advocated the total abolition of either Government or Law.

2. I am not engaging in conjecture on what would happen if Government was abolished.

3. I don't see what Governments being an institution (seperate or not, you appear to be denying the statement: "Governments act unethically", which is just... pure nonsense) separate from the people or intertwined with the people has to do with anything. It can still act unethically, just like a corporation, or an individual can (which is my point, which I made quite clear). I have no idea what a "separate institution" means or why you think it's relevant. Don't bring up pointless terminology that doesn't mean anything and is totally irrelevant to the point at hand.

4. Also, please don't make straw man arguments, they don't benefit anyone and they just make you look stupid.
0
reply
Lefty Leo
Badges: 10
#36
Report 9 years ago
#36
(Original post by Bagration)
No what? No Governments don't act unethically? Surely you're joking...


1. I have never advocated the total abolition of either Government or Law.

2. I am not engaging in conjecture on what would happen if Government was abolished.

3. I don't see what Governments being an institution (seperate or not, you appear to be denying the statement: "Governments act unethically", which is just... pure nonsense) separate from the people or intertwined with the people has to do with anything. It can still act unethically. I have no idea what a "separate institution" means or why you think it's not relevant. Don't bring up pointless terminology that doesn't mean anything and is totally irrelevant to the point at hand.
Your point is that government inherently acts unethically, or historically tends to do it or whatever, which aside from being totally untrue, is flawed on the level which you seem to have ignored in your post:

The "government" is simply an extension of "people". It can act unethically, it but that's got nothing to do with the fact that it's "government"; it's to do with the fact that there are bad people in "government". And yes, i am denying the statement "governments act unethically". PEOPLE in governments (if your definition of government in this case is the institution as a whole), or a certain government controlled by an "unethical" faction (and in this case your definition for "government" must be the controlling people in the organization), might act unethically, but they do not do inherently so, any more than drivers purposely run over children.

Your final statement in the post i quoted is also the most out of touch with reality. You seem to be claiming that letting a monopolist in a market run amuck and enforce its will on others with no resistance (which would happen, legally, in a minimum regulation environment which you seem to be proposing, with "government" severely restricted) is preferable, supposedly historically less likely to turn "unethical", than letting a government, which is elected by democratic universal suffrage and generally reflects the views of the majority, have the final say. :rofl:

Anyway, you've joined the Conservative party. You are totally opposed to people living their own lives anyway now, aren't you? Shouldn't you be subscribing to the family values rhetoric and giving Libertarianism "the finger"? But then again, your defence of a monopolist corporation vis a vis government probably fits into the right wing economics both Libertarians and Conservatives believe in. Infact, it probably fits in better, because atleast Libertarians would be annoyed if Microsoft were to explicitly exploit its monopolist position by, say, enforcing slavery or something alike. And when i scroll up to your post at the top of the page, a .. well, unsurprising statement can be seen confirming this (the support of slavery and pseudo slavery, that is)!

(Original post by Bagration)
If I was to think of the three wars in which all Libertarians must surely support or have supported one side, they would be the US War of Independence, the US Civil War (the CSA) and the Rhodesian War of Independence (Rhodesia), and interestingly, popular conception would have us painted as supporting the exploiters in the latter two instances...
And by the by, i don't think any sensibile Libertarian would support the CSA or the Rhodesian white supremacist regime, because the foundations of their governments and societies were diametrically opposed to Libertarianism. Jeez, suggesting slavery and white majority rule would be compatible with Libertarianism? What history books have you been reading my good friend Bagration? However, a Conservative could, ideologically atleast, find it in himself to support such regimes
reply
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#37
Report 9 years ago
#37
(Original post by Lefty Leo)
Your point is that government inherently acts unethically, or historically tends to do it or whatever, which aside from being totally untrue, is flawed on the level which you seem to have ignored in your post:
Tell me where I said that Government either:
inherently acts unethically
historically tends to act unethically

Read my posts and you'll find I actually said neither, lol

(Original post by Lefty Leo)
The "government" is simply an extension of "people". It can act unethically, it but that's got nothing to do with the fact that it's "government"; it's to do with the fact that there are bad people in "government".
The distinction is meaningless. The post I was addressing claims Libertarianism fails because, when it sits on its "lofty ideology", it doesn't protect people against unethical acts by corporations. My point was that Social Democracy, the most "moderate" of political ideologies, scarcely protects people against unethical acts by Government like it does (or actually doesn't) protect them from corporations. In this head-to-head case, you can either be protected by law against corporations, or by law against government (social democracy v whig liberalism). It's not that hard to understand, really.

However, you seem to have accepted some form of deranged positivist logic whereby anything a representative democracy does is justified because more people say it is than say it isn't. According to you, in a democracy, the people = the government. That isn't quite true. Government consists only in a very small form of people elected to take office by the people. It consists, in a Social Democracy, or any Statist form of Government, of mainly bureaucrats or civil servants who are loosely directed by our elected representatives. It's not true to say that the primary organs of Government are one and the same with the people. You have absolutely nothing to do with what happens in 90% of Government bureaus.

But, this comes to a greater question. In your concept of Government = people, when a crime is committed by the Government, it's also committed by the people. So let's say that someone is intentionally murdered by an overly-stressed armed policeman. After all the lines of inquiry and a court case, the policeman is found guilty of manslaughter. Who, ultimately, has committed a crime against who? The Government (or more accurately a Government agent) against an individual, like I and other Libertarians would say, or, as the logical conclusion of your argument would go, the people have committed a crime against the people?

Shouldn't we be punishing ourselves, then?

(Original post by Lefty Leo)
Your final statement in the post i quoted is also the most out of touch with reality. You seem to be claiming that letting a monopolist in a market run amuck and enforce its will on others with no resistance (which would happen, legally, in a minimum regulation environment which you seem to be proposing, with "government" severely restricted) is preferable, supposedly historically less likely to turn "unethical", than letting a government, which is elected by democratic universal suffrage and generally reflects the views of the majority, have the final say. :rofl:
You clearly have lost touch with any sense of what this thread or about or what I mean by my posts. I mean, that's fine, but you shouldn't pretend you actually understand what you're talking about. Either that or you plain up cannot read. I'm not quite sure which it is: in any case, I don't really care.

(Original post by Lefty Leo)
You are totally opposed to people living their own lives anyway now, aren't you?
No evidence. I'll just strike that off on the huge list of retarded things you've been saying.

(Original post by Lefty Leo)
Shouldn't you be subscribing to the family values rhetoric and giving Libertarianism "the finger"?
They're not incompatible. But I'm not surprised you don't know that.

(Original post by Lefty Leo)
But then again, your defence of a monopolist corporation vis a vis government
So now you've just resorted to making things up. Good, more propaganda for the next General Election. That's okay, though, the SPTSR has a long history of slandering me...

(Original post by Lefty Leo)
probably fits into the right wing economics both Libertarians and Conservatives believe in.
Tories and Libertarians (of which, ideologically, I claim to be neither) don't share a particularly similar belief. Again, I wouldn't expect you to know that, but at least try, k?

(Original post by Lefty Leo)
Infact, it probably fits in better, because atleast Libertarians would be annoyed if Microsoft were to explicitly exploit its monopolist position by, say, enforcing slavery or something alike.
So now, I, and all other Libertarians, support slavery, even though numerous other Libertarians have stated in this thread that it's the duty of a Libertarian to fight exploitation...

Got any more stupid things to say, or are you going to stop now?

(Original post by Lefty Leo)
And by the by, i don't think any sensibile Libertarian would support the CSA or the Rhodesian white supremacist regime, because the foundations of their governments and societies were diametrically opposed to Libertarianism. Jeez, suggesting slavery and white majority rule would be compatible with Libertarianism? What history books have you been reading my good friend Bagration? However, a Conservative could, ideologically atleast, find it in himself to support such regimes
The South was nothing to do with the slavery. The War Between the States started over TAXATION and the powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Read a history book.

Re: Rhodesia, I frankly don't see why Libertarians should support the alternatives. At any rate, one of the most famous currently writing Libertarians, Lew Rockwell, has come out in support of Rhodesia before, but again, I didn't expect you to know that.
0
reply
Lefty Leo
Badges: 10
#38
Report 9 years ago
#38
(Original post by Bagration)
Tell me where I said that Government either:
inherently acts unethically
historically tends to act unethically

Read my posts and you'll find I actually said neither, lol
(Original post by Bagration)
Social Democracy might stop corporations from acting unethically (and that's contentious, too. Is Microsoft acting ethically when it enforces its intellectual property?) but Libertarianism stops governments from acting unethically. If we have to pick one, all the history of freedom urges us to choose the latter.
I'm sorry, either you're suggesting that governments have been historically predisposed to act unethically, ie, inherently, for whatever reason, or you're just a plain liar?

(Original post by Bagration)
The distinction is meaningless. The post I was addressing claims Libertarianism fails because, when it sits on its "lofty ideology", it doesn't protect people against unethical acts by corporations. My point was that Social Democracy, the most "moderate" of political ideologies, scarcely protects people against unethical acts by Government like it does (or actually doesn't) protect them from corporations. In this head-to-head case, you can either be protected by law against corporations, or by law against government (social democracy v whig liberalism). It's not that hard to understand, really.
Well, aside from the fact that you're looking at things in black and white, neither of which are actually the case in reality (once again, unsurprising to understand that you don't sit too well with reality, being a Libertarian / Conservative and all). The idea that you can only be protected against Corporations or Governments is, frankly, ludicrous. Would you like me to point out individually the thousands of cases and pieces of legislation enacted to prevent or punish government abuse?

(Original post by Bagration)
However, you seem to have accepted some form of deranged positivist logic
Called deranged by a Libertarian / Conservative? I consider that a huge compliment

(Original post by Bagration)
whereby anything a representative democracy does is justified because more people say it is than say it isn't. According to you, in a democracy, the people = the government.
I never said that. I stated, quite clearly, let me quote: "You seem to be claiming that letting a monopolist in a market run amuck and enforce its will on others with no resistance (which would happen, legally, in a minimum regulation environment which you seem to be proposing, with "government" severely restricted) is preferable, supposedly historically less likely to turn "unethical", than letting a government, which is elected by democratic universal suffrage and generally reflects the views of the majority, have the final say. ". So not only did i not say all of what you just said i said, all i infact said was that your point that corporations have historically been less "unethical" than government was untrue and either a lie or borne out of sheer ignorance.


(Original post by Bagration)
That isn't quite true. Government consists only in a very small form of people elected to take office by the people. It consists, in a Social Democracy, or any Statist form of Government, of mainly bureaucrats or civil servants who are loosely directed by our elected representatives. It's not true to say that the primary organs of Government are one and the same with the people. You have absolutely nothing to do with what happens in 90% of Government bureaus.
Whatever it is, it's an infinitely better system than Corporate dominance, which is what this argument is now about; not about "Libertarianism" as you seem to be thinking i'm arguing against, because i myself am a staunch libertarian liberal (whereas you seem to be a hypocrite, calling yourself a Bleeding Heart Liberal while being a MP for the Conservative party and not only that an ex Libertarian, thus totally discrediting your claims for "bleeding heart" by a mile, unless it's meant ironically, in which case i retract my criticisms), but against the silly notion that Corporations, you mentioned Microsoft, have been, supposedly, as per as you, during "the history of freedom", less inclined to "unethical" behaviour than the Government.

(Original post by Bagration)
But, this comes to a greater question. In your concept of Government = people, when a crime is committed by the Government, it's also committed by the people. So let's say that someone is intentionally murdered by an overly-stressed armed policeman. After all the lines of inquiry and a court case, the policeman is found guilty of manslaughter. Who, ultimately, has committed a crime against who? The Government (or more accurately a Government agent) against an individual, like I and other Libertarians would say, or, as the logical conclusion of your argument would go, the people have committed a crime against the people?
What the hell are you on about? Are you so desperate that you're making some esoteric nonsensical point? Not only did i not say that governments EQUAL people, i also said (earlier on) that governments are a natural development as a result of the human need for stability, order, and a want for no anarchy.

(Original post by Bagration)
Shouldn't we be punishing ourselves, then?
:facepalm2:

(Original post by Bagration)
You clearly have lost touch with any sense of what this thread or about or what I mean by my posts. I mean, that's fine, but you shouldn't pretend you actually understand what you're talking about. Either that or you plain up cannot read. I'm not quite sure which it is: in any case, I don't really care.
Whatever you wish to tell yourself my good friend Bags

(Original post by Bagration)
No evidence. I'll just strike that off on the huge list of retarded things you've been saying.
Evidence? You're a TSR Conservative, and a TSR Conservative MP! If you find the fact that i think you're naturally predisposed to authoritarianism hard to understand, you need to refresh your knowledge of conservatism.

(Original post by Bagration)
They're not incompatible. But I'm not surprised you don't know that.
Traditional, heterosexual family values (as the term is normally understood) is not incompatible to Libertarianism? Damn, how is the weather on Mars?

(Original post by Bagration)
So now you've just resorted to making things up. Good, more propaganda for the next General Election. That's okay, though, the SPTSR has a long history of slandering me...
(Original post by Bagration)
Social Democracy might stop corporations from acting unethically (and that's contentious, too. Is Microsoft acting ethically when it enforces its intellectual property?) but Libertarianism stops governments from acting unethically. If we have to pick one, all the history of freedom urges us to choose the latter.
Either you have a very short term memory or a very selective one

(Original post by Bagration)
Tories and Libertarians (of which, ideologically, I claim to be neither) don't share a particularly similar belief. Again, I wouldn't expect you to know that, but at least try, k?
Then GTFO out of the TSR Conservatives. And yes, they do in fact; they both similarly are proponents of free market capitalism with minimal regulation. I WOULD expect you to know that, but unfortunately it seems that this isn't the case .

(Original post by Bagration)
So now, I, and all other Libertarians, support slavery, even though numerous other Libertarians have stated in this thread that it's the duty of a Libertarian to fight exploitation...
(Original post by Bagration)
If I was to think of the three wars in which all Libertarians must surely support or have supported one side, they would be the US War of Independence, the US Civil War (the CSA) and the Rhodesian War of Independence (Rhodesia), and interestingly, popular conception would have us painted as supporting the exploiters in the latter two instances...
Once again i refer you back to your previous statements that highlight your selective or failing memory. Now before you go into the whole "oh noes, but the CSA were the victims and teh warz wasn't about slavery" argument in suggesting that Libertarianism would support the CSA; whether or not the war was about that, Libertarianism would be firmly opposed to the CSA on the grounds that it was a country that allowed slavery. Whether or not the war was for other reasons, Libertarians would believe tha the CSA had no raison d'etre, because its primary, public reason for secession was the election of the staunchly abolitionist Abraham Lincoln. So whatever other million reasons you might put down for the war, "states rights" or whatever, states rights in this case were over the issue of, you guessed it, slavery. Now this is a real surprise; one would guess that a seasoned HOC veteran like yourself would understand why Libertarianism and slavery are diametrically opposed ideologies, but i guess if it's come to the stage where i have to spell it out for you there is no point in explaining it.

(Original post by Bagration)
Got any more stupid things to say, or are you going to stop now?
Once again, being called stupid by a Libertarian / Conservative is a refreshing complement if anything

Anyway, i'm off to bed. You have fun "not caring" matey And remember, no matter how personally it appears i'm arguing against you, it's more to do with the fact that i have a hardline arguing style, not that i'm arguing negatively or sarcastically to you selectively. I'm sure you're a nice person
reply
sconzey
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#39
Report 9 years ago
#39
(Original post by Lefty Leo)
Now before you go into the whole "oh noes, but the CSA were the victims and teh warz wasn't about slavery" argument in suggesting that Libertarianism would support the CSA; whether or not the war was about that, Libertarianism would be firmly opposed to the CSA on the grounds that it was a country that allowed slavery.
One doesn't have to support Sharia law to argue that military intervention in Afgahnistan and Iraq was illegal and unjustified.

One doesn't have to support Slavery to argue that military intervention in the Confederate States was illegal and unjustified.
(Original post by Lefty Leo)
You seem to be claiming that letting a monopolist in a market run amuck and enforce its will on others with no resistance
Isn't that what you're claiming? Whether a Parliament, a President, or other, what is the State but an organisation of individuals with a geographic monopoly on governance?

Any economist worth his salt will tell you that monopolies are very unprofitable to construct and maintain unless upheld by force of arms or legal fiat; i.e. nearly every monopoly in history has existed only through government intervention c.f. chartered companies. DeBeers is a possible exception, but it transpires that the DeBeers monopoly wasn't very profitable at all -- DeBeers spent so much pushing other companies out of the market that they nearly obliterated any profits they made from the artificial scarcity.
0
reply
Collingwood
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 9 years ago
#40
(Original post by AirRaven)
And, on the flipside, they also can't be subjected to Government Action trying to, say, rein in pollution levels for the sake of the health of the population. Or, on that note, to rein in Climate Change- the examples of factory owners worldwide should be sufficient proof that sans Government Action, absolutely nothing will be done about the problems of Greenhouse Gas emissions.
I don't think it's the case that these issues would not be dealt with. Hurting people and destroying their property via pollution falls pretty squarely under libertarian prohibitions on violating self-ownership. You're probably right that "the state" wouldn't "take action" in the form of sweeping discretionary powers such as banning 100W lightbulbs; rather it would be dealt with in the civil courts. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that this is a bad thing, though.

The same was true of workplace conditions in the past, if you want to take the AGW-sceptic route- until it became illegal not to have machinery guards and unhealthy working conditions, the overwhelming majority of factories simply disregarded ethical concerns and ploughed on towards the path of least cost.

The inconvenience of the few versus the happiness of the many- seems pretty cut and dried to me.
I think this sort of thing is mostly a result of a poor understanding of economics. Factories compete for employees, and can do so either by raising nominal salaries, or improving working conditions, or reducing hours, &c. At the time when this sort of thing was prevelant, the marginal value of production was not high enough to sustain modern working conditions and enough pay to support the employees. So in so far as this would occur in a free market, I do not think it is a bad thing (or, at least, it is better than the practical alternative, which is to shut down factories and stall industrial progress possibly indefinitely).

Lofty principle's fine, so long as it doesn't lead to hideous consequences in the real world- as the Libertarian philosophy almost inevitably does.
Statism does just fine though :rolleyes:

I love people who can't read signatures, don't you?
Oh come on, it was 4am. If I'd read it properly I'm sure I could have been far more biting and sarcastic.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (139)
38.19%
No - but I will (20)
5.49%
No - I don't want to (26)
7.14%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (179)
49.18%

Watched Threads

View All