Libertarianism Declared Dead

[dudalb]

Of course it would be. Just like there was nothing wrong with when auto companies bought up private mass transit companies to put them out of business to get more people to buy cars.

In the libertarian world view such things are the market in action, not illegal conspiracies like they were in our world.

I agree with your general points about the folly of Libertarianism, but the "auto companies destroyed mass transit" theory is very questionable.
The whole Story, popularised by "Roger Rabbit", that the LA trolley system was eliminated by the auto companies is cut out of whole cloth. The fact was, it was cheaper to change to buses then to continue to run the trollies when the conversion happened.
ANd old time residents of LA laughed at the line about how LA "how the best public tranportation in the world". Even in the Trolly days, LA Public transportion stunk. The Trolly routes were very limited.

 

[Chaos]

Your comment seems to be a non sequitur in that my observation was that a contract in which Bob agreed to let his legs be broken would be unenforceable. Is it the Democrats or the Republicans that passed the law that says a bank has to give a dying man a loan?

My comment was an absolute sequitur - no "non" in there. If the contract is unenforceable, the loan guy won´t agree to it - ergo, Bob gets no loan, so Bob dies.

 

[Mister Agenda]

How is Bob's consent to harm revocable by him? If he agrees to do something, and then goes back on that promise, or agress to it knowing full well he won't honour the promise, hasn't he committed a fraud? Is a Libertarian gov't interested in limiting what people can contract for? Doesn't a libertarian gov't want to enforce contracts?

A right recognized as inalienable is one you can't sign away, by definition. Contracts for assassination would also be illegal, as would be conspiracy to murder someone. I'm throwing that in as apparently I can't assume this point is obvious. Oh, and you can't sign yourself or your family up to be enslaved either. Did I miss anything? Are you sure you're not thinking of anarcho-capitalism?

Doesn't a Republican or Democrat gov't want to enforce contracts?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, it is in the real world, which is why they have been prosecuted when the scheme came to light. In Libertopia, however, such behaviour would be fine - wouldn't it?

Setting prices would be legal in Libertopia. Concealing the fact would be fraud.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Libertarianism is no more dead than any other religion. Die-hards will continue to think there are excuses and new buds based on their view will spring forth.

 

[Mister Agenda]

My comment was an absolute sequitur - no "non" in there. If the contract is unenforceable, the loan guy won´t agree to it - ergo, Bob gets no loan, so Bob dies.

True. In what fantasy land does anyone have to give a man a loan because he's dying? Democratopia? You're acting like it's the Libertarians' fault that Tony can't enforce his contract legally, but it's news to me if it's legally enforceable under a Republican or Democrat regime, either. By your logic if I get into a similar situation next year and Tony won't give me money because he's worried the police might not approve of his actions, I'm entitled to blame the Democrats for being so heartless as to deny my right to enter into any contract at all with no limitations.

Also, it's a little strange that I have to point this out on a skeptic's forum, but there are actually more than two possible outcomes: Bob gets the loan or Bob dies. If you try hard you might be able to think of other ways Bob might save himself. The world in which Tony is Bob's only possible option is also one that does not exist in reality.

 

[DanishDynamite]

True. In what fantasy land does anyone have to give a man a loan because he's dying? Democratopia? You're acting like it's the Libertarians' fault that Tony can't enforce his contract legally, but it's news to me if it's legally enforceable under a Republican or Democrat regime, either. By your logic if I get into a similar situation next year and Tony won't give me money because he's worried the police might not approve of his actions, I'm entitled to blame the Democrats for being so heartless as to deny my right to enter into any contract at all with no limitations.

Also, it's a little strange that I have to point this out on a skeptic's forum, but there are actually more than two possible outcomes: Bob gets the loan or Bob dies. If you try hard you might be able to think of other ways Bob might save himself. The world in which Tony is Bob's only possible option is also one that does not exist in reality.

The excuses begin.

This one contains the word "reality". I wasn't aware that Libertarianists were acqauinted with this word.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Libertarianism is no more dead than any other religion. Die-hards will continue to think there are excuses and new buds based on their view will spring forth.

So being a Democrat or Republican or atheist IS a religion after all. After all the times I've argued the inappropriateness of labeling any of those things a religion in the same sense that Catholicism is a religion, I am forced to acknowledge that equivocation is a valid form of debate after all: if I recognize DD's argument as a strong one.

I guess it's important that we not think that the current meltdown in any way invalidates neoconservatism, Republicanism, market manipulation, or political capitalism when it's such a good opportunity to attack those annoying, yet nearly powerless, libertarians. I think I follow the reasoning though: if we can cause so much damage without ever having gotten a single candidate to a federal level elective office, it would no doubt spell the end of civilization if we got a single senator voted in. It's kind of flattering that we're considered so disproportionately influential in certain quarters. Don't worry, when we have a few people in office we'll do the heavy lifting of actually opposing invading countries that haven't attacked us and defending our civil liberties even if they come wrapped up in a big bow that says 'Patriot' on it. No doubt we'll be the ruin of everything good and decent.

 

[Mister Agenda]

The excuses begin.

This one contains the word "reality". I wasn't aware that Libertarianists were acqauinted with this word.

You're right. That hypothetical situation was so unassailable that there couldn't possibly be a valid objection to it.

At this rate my eyes could get stuck that way!

 

[DanishDynamite]

You're right. That hypothetical situation was so unassailable that there couldn't possibly be a valid objection to it.

At this rate my eyes could get stuck that way!

Not understood. Could you explain your objection?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Not understood. Could you explain your objection?

Sorry. The confusion is probably from wandering in late, and I should have given more detail as a courtesy.

Thanz devised a hypothetical situation in which Bob becomes deathly ill and loses his job and his insurance and runs out of money and is forced to resort to a loan shark named Tony in order to get money for his treatment. Presumably, dire consequences follow from Bob not paying Tony back. The question then was at what point would a Libertarian/Libertopian government intervene, if at all.

I pointed out that one's right to be protected from the initiation of violence is inalienable, that is, it cannot be signed away, and therefore the contract would be void in Libertopia (and any other form of government I'm aware of).

Chaos complained that by not enforcing the loan shark's contract, the shark would not enter into a loan agreement with Bob and Bob would therefore die from not having the money to get his treatment.

I replied that the loan shark is not Bob's only conceivable solution to his problem, and that Democrats and Republicans are also notorious for not enforcing the contracts of loan sharks, assassins, or the like; and neither do they force anyone else to make loans to dying people-so this is not a uniquely libertarian outcome.

At this point you stated 'the excuses begin' and remarked on the incongruity of a libertarian using the word 'reality'.

I hope this clears things up, because I don't want to do that again.

 

[Thanz]

Setting prices would be legal in Libertopia. Concealing the fact would be fraud.

This makes no sense. How is concealing it fraud? Why would a Libertarian gov't require the disclosure of confidential business dealings which are not, in and of themselves, illegal?

Let's say that company A agrees to make all of the car seats for company B to put in their cars. Company B then puts them in their cars, and sells them to consumers. Does company B have to reveal the fact that company A made the seats? Do they have to disclose the price, or other terms of the supply contract?

 

[Mister Agenda]

This makes no sense. How is concealing it fraud? Why would a Libertarian gov't require the disclosure of confidential business dealings which are not, in and of themselves, illegal?

Let's say that company A agrees to make all of the car seats for company B to put in their cars. Company B then puts them in their cars, and sells them to consumers. Does company B have to reveal the fact that company A made the seats? Do they have to disclose the price, or other terms of the supply contract?

I don't actually believe in Libertopia, I'm familiar enough with the theories to take us this far, but frankly at this point I have to concede I'm as baffled as you. I'm not a purist, I'm willing to 'break theory' and say price collaboration is a problem that has to at least be transparent so the public can respond to it when it happens and if that's not according to Libertopian doctrine, I can live with it.

Maybe someone else can follow the logic to next 'Libertopian' answer, and I might find it persuasive or might not. Saul?

 

[Thanz]

Thanz devised a hypothetical situation in which Bob becomes deathly ill and loses his job and his insurance and runs out of money and is forced to resort to a loan shark named Tony in order to get money for his treatment. Presumably, dire consequences follow from Bob not paying Tony back. The question then was at what point would a Libertarian/Libertopian government intervene, if at all.

What I find sad is that a Libertarian gov't won't intervene until the very end of this tragic tale. I am happy living up here in Soviet Canukistan where there are protections against being fired for getting cancer, where everyone has health insurance, where a hospital doesn't turn you away for lack of cash, where loan sharking is a crime (caps on interest rate) and where beating people up for not paying a debt is also a crime.

 

[Tippit]

Quoted for truth.

Every single contemporary Libertarian presidential nominee, including Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and even Libertarian imposter Bob Barr has called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, and has offered scathing indictments of our corrupt monetary and banking system.

Do you represent most Libertarians in some alternate universe?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Every single contemporary Libertarian presidential nominee, including Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and even Libertarian imposter Bob Barr has called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, and has offered scathing indictments of our corrupt monetary and banking system.

Which is why they are universally laughed at.

 

[69dodge]

How is outlawing voluntary lending (collateralised or not) libertarian?

As I have said, I have explained time and time and time and time again, but you dismiss it without argument except to label it a conspiracy theory.

Are you referring to your position that banks, by allowing withdrawal of depositors' money on demand, implicitly claim not to lend any of it out?

I don't find that position convincing either, and I can't figure out why you hold it.

Almost always, relatively few depositors want to withdraw their money simultaneously. Therefore, it is possible for banks to lend out most of the money deposited with them and still, almost always, to allow withdrawal by any depositor who in fact wants to withdraw his money. Since it's possible to do both---it is obviously possible, because banks do so---how is doing one an implicit claim that the other isn't done?

But, never mind implicit claims. What if a bank were completely explicit about what it does? What if it had a big sign in the window, like this:

We lend out most of the money deposited with us. This means that if too many depositors should happen to want to withdraw their money simultaneously, they won't be able to. If you don't like this, don't deposit your money with us.​

Would that be acceptable to you? Would you consider such a bank to be acting in any way fraudulently?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Are you referring to your position that banks, by allowing withdrawal of depositors' money on demand, implicitly claim not to lend any of it out?

I don't find that position convincing either, and I can't figure out why you hold it.

Put on your conspiracy nut tin foil hat. Then it will all be very clear to you.

 

[Francesca R]

Are you referring to your position that banks, by allowing withdrawal of depositors' money on demand, implicitly claim not to lend any of it out?

I don't find that position convincing either, and I can't figure out why you hold it.

It is one of several gaping fault-lines in conspiracy-nut thinking.

Just extend it a bit:

All insurance is fraud. It cannot pay out if there are simultaneous maximum claims from every policy holder. Insurance must be outlawed except to the extent that hard gold-backed cash is stored in a vault backing every penny of every possible putative claim under every policy.

All incorporated business is fraud because if their liabilities exceed their assets and they don't have cash flow they must stop trading and potentially default to customers and creditors. Only businesses that store hard gold-backed currency in the vault in reserve, to pay every transaction they enter into are allowed.

All sole traders or those limited by partnership are fraud for similar reasons

Never mind that all of the above, (and banks) have "plc" or "ltd" or "inc" in their name. It's fraud and lies. Never a borrower or a lender be, dammit!

Probably if I exchange some yams and root crops for some stone working tools in a spontaneous transaction with you, that's OK and all is good.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Probably if I exchange some yams and root crops for some stone working tools in a spontaneous transaction with you, that's OK and all is good.

Are you suggesting a return to the yam standard?