Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Libertarianism watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    "The sacred principles of liberty [are] embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."

    If you are a libertarian, do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?
    Offline

    13
    Libertarianism (i.e. right-libertarianism) is an attempt to philosophically defend the advantages of the wealthy by objecting to any restraint on their liberties and by disingenuously presenting such defence as if promoting everyone's liberties. For all their specious arguments and appeals to essays written by their saints, it is a philosophy which in practice defends and expands the exercisable liberty of the wealthy while limiting the exercisable liberty of, and imposing the wealthy's demands upon, the remainder.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Bertie is right as usual.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Are there no libetarians to argue back? There usually seems to be more than plenty on this forum.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by JW92)
    Are there no libetarians to argue back? There usually seems to be more than plenty on this forum.
    They'll turn up sooner or later, the internet is their domain, lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    "The sacred principles of liberty [are] embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."

    If you are a libertarian, do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?
    Why do I disagree with it? Because it overlooks the fundamentally important fact that the greatest tyrannies in human history are and always have been states. Seeing as libertarians want always and everywhere to minimize the role and power of the state, it's a pretty ridiculous thing to say.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    They'll turn up sooner or later, the internet is their domain, lol
    Lol someone's bitter that Marxism isn't popular anymore.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Libertarianism (i.e. right-libertarianism) is an attempt to philosophically defend the advantages of the wealthy by objecting to any restraint on their liberties and by disingenuously presenting such defence as if promoting everyone's liberties. For all their specious arguments and appeals to essays written by their saints, it is a philosophy which in practice defends and expands the exercisable liberty of the wealthy while limiting the exercisable liberty of, and imposing the wealthy's demands upon, the remainder.
    Yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    "The sacred principles of liberty [are] embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."

    If you are a libertarian, do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?
    No, because libertarians don't believe in tyranny over anyone.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Why do I disagree with it? Because it overlooks the fundamentally important fact that the greatest tyrannies in human history are and always have been states. Seeing as libertarians want always and everywhere to minimize the role and power of the state, it's a pretty ridiculous thing to say.
    The quotation read, "The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."

    This quotation brings to light the fact that if one removes the government, it doesn't remove control, only the control shifts to those with money and resources. State regulation however helps divert the power of the large monopolies and the rich, so that they cannot act tyrannically in regards to smaller businesses and the poor.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Libertarianism (i.e. right-libertarianism) is an attempt to philosophically defend the advantages of the wealthy by objecting to any restraint on their liberties and by disingenuously presenting such defence as if promoting everyone's liberties. For all their specious arguments and appeals to essays written by their saints, it is a philosophy which in practice defends and expands the exercisable liberty of the wealthy while limiting the exercisable liberty of, and imposing the wealthy's demands upon, the remainder.
    You can think of libertarianism as the spiritual successor to Marxism, if you like: one of our primary goals is to ensure that nobody is exploited, by having the fruits of their labour expropriated. Of course, we (unlike the Marxists) understand the nature of economic value, and we realize that the major exploitative force in society is the state because of its control over the means of coercion, but the point remains: if you care about exploitation, you should believe in self-ownership. And if you believe in self-ownership, equality goes out the window. See my post in the other thread (notable for the lack of response by a single left-winger) for more on this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    No, because libertarians don't believe in tyranny over anyone.
    But isn't the tyranny of the fortunate over the unfortunate an unavoidable side-effect of complete economic freedom?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    The quotation read, "The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."

    This quotation brings to light the fact that if one removes the government, it doesn't remove control, only the control shifts to those with money and resources. State regulation however helps divert the power of the large monopolies and the rich, so that they cannot act tyrannically in regards to smaller businesses and the poor.
    No, state intervention creates the power of large monopolies. As for the idea that the rich can act 'tyrannically' towards smaller businesses and the poor, this is simply an abuse of language. A quote from Hayek, as well as one from Trotsky, are both relevant here:

    "What is called economic power, while it can be called an instrument of coercion, is, in the hands of private individuals, never exclusive or complete power, never power over the whole life of a person. But centralised as an instrument of political power it cretes a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery."

    "The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    You can think of libertarianism as the spiritual successor to Marxism, if you like: one of our primary goals is to ensure that nobody is exploited, by having the fruits of their labour expropriated. Of course, we (unlike the Marxists) understand the nature of economic value, and we realize that the major exploitative force in society is the state because of its control over the means of coercion, but the point remains: if you care about exploitation, you should believe in self-ownership. And if you believe in self-ownership, equality goes out the window. See my post in the other thread (notable for the lack of response by a single left-winger) for more on this.
    so those who work for half a dollar a day because otherwise they would starve are not being exploited?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    No, because libertarians don't believe in tyranny over anyone.
    seems like they believe in corporation's tyranny over individuals.libertarianism:trans fer the power of the state to the corporation
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    so those who work for half a dollar a day because otherwise they would starve are not being exploited?
    Nope, not in most cases. Actually the vast majority of sweatshop wages are far above the amount people would have earned simply working in the fields; now, I'm not saying that it's a perfect situation, but condemning those who provide the capital to open factories in these places is condemning the only people who are making a positive difference to the lives of the poor.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Nope, not in most cases. Actually the vast majority of sweatshop wages are far above the amount people would have earned simply working in the fields; now, I'm not saying that it's a perfect situation, but condemning those who provide the capital to open factories in these places is condemning the only people who are making a positive difference to the lives of the poor.
    exploitation=using someone only as a means to an end,sweatshops=using someone's labour only as a means to an end and paying them the bare minimum,not what they need or deserve
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    exploitation=using someone only as a means to an end,sweatshops=using someone's labour only as a means to an end and paying them the bare minimum,not what they need or deserve
    This is a bad definition, because a partner at Goldman Sachs on £2 million a year is being thereby 'exploited' by GS. Not to mention that sweatshop workers are also 'exploiting' their employer, because they are treating him as a means to an end (namely, a paycheck.)
    Offline

    13
    Libertarians tend not to believe in the concept of 'exploitation' unless an immediate coercive force, as they define it, is present. The upshot is that unless someone is being actively compelled by force to accept $1 a day for their labour and they are free to turn that $1 a day down and starve (literally), they're not being exploited, even if there's no other source of labour. In the crazy world of the libertarian the would-be labourer was entirely free to choose starvation over $1 a day. There's no easy reasoning with people who think like that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It would work, if you could actually trust the rich and powerful to not bleed every last worker 'til they're dry. But you can't. So it doesn't.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 10, 2009
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.