Libertarianism Declared Dead

[Richard Masters]

Richard, you directly implied that child labour was not a problem, but a choice. I understand your reticence to stand behind the consequences of this opinion, but perhaps rather than pretend you didn't say it, or that the things Darat has described are not directly related to the policies you espouse, mabe you should stop trying to shoe-horn your social-democratic instincts into the libertarian identity label you seem to have erroneously selected for yourself...

I sympathize with the poor girl. I don't know her background. Was she coerced (I know she says she did it willingly), were there alternatives? Was this unusual at the time?

You seem to want to be a libertarian (or at least to self-identify as one), even though you by instinct and by rationale reject its tenets and its consequences.

Rather, I have reasonable solutions for its shortcomings.

 

[Darat]

I'm not advocating that at all. That's a straw man argument.

Where on earth have I said you are advocating that? You asked a question and I replied and gave the evidence I used to come to the my answer.

We see the same problems occurring time and time again, even in societies today. If there are not adequate social provisions and enforced regulations children will be exploited.

 

[Richard Masters]

Then you have reversed your position from where you entered this thread, at least in respect of the part that concerned me. Thank you for confirming that.

I wasn't aware we were discussing contracts. Thus there was no reversal.

 

[volatile]

I sympathize with the poor girl. I don't know her background. Was she coerced (I know she says she did it willingly), were there alternatives? Was this unusual at the time?

In what way are these questions relevant? If you want to propose a politics, then such a politics needs to be able to address such problems, even if they are commonplace (perhaps particularly if they are commonplace), and, more importantly, it needs to recognise them as problems, which you refused to do.

How would your Libertopia prevent child labour (especially if you also reject the idea and value of "childhood" in the first place)?

 

[Richard Masters]

Where on earth have I said you are advocating that? You asked a question and I replied and gave the evidence I used to come to the my answer.

I wasn't sure what you were implying by your response, so I simply clarified my position.

We see the same problems occurring time and time again, even in societies today. If there are not adequate social provisions and enforced regulations children will be exploited.

 

[volatile]

I wasn't aware we were discussing contracts. Thus there was no reversal.

Nonsense.Your response to Francesca when she brought this us included the words, typed by you, "A libertarian government probably wouldn't automatically outlaw such a contract", preceded by an expression that, nevertheless, such contracts were "non-proportional" and therefore implicitly non-desirable.

 

[Richard Masters]

In what way are these questions relevant? If you want to propose a politics, then such a politics needs to be able to address such problems, even if they are commonplace (perhaps particularly if they are commonplace), and, more importantly, it needs to recognise them as problems, which you refused to do.

That's a hypocritical position. You refuse to address my problem of being prevented by the government from making a personal phone call and living where I choose to live. Why should I recognize your definition of a problem if you cannot even explain why it is a problem?

How would your Libertopia prevent child labour (especially if you also reject the idea and value of "childhood" in the first place)?

What's with the pet names and generalizations?

My position has been that it may not be considered to be a problem. If it is recognized that child labor is harmful in a particular situation then it shouldn't be permitted.

 

[volatile]

That's a hypocritical position. You refuse to address my problem of being prevented by the government from making a personal phone call and living where I choose to live. Why should I recognize your definition of a problem if you cannot even explain why it is a problem?

I've lost you. What ever are you on about?

Your "problem" was, I suspect, not the product of any particular ideological position in any sense other than it acknowledged an age of majority. Society has deemed that 13 year-olds are not allowed to make their own decisions, for a number of rather sound historical, developmental and psychological reasons.

On the other hand, allowing 12 year-olds the "right" to "choose" to work is very much an ideological position, and one that is historically provable to be damaging sociologically, developmentally and ethically.

And so - your libertopia does not recognise an age of majority. Another black mark against both its sense and its sensibilities.

My position has been that it may not be considered to be a problem. If it is recognized that child labor is harmful in a particular situation then it shouldn't be permitted.

Child labour is always harmful, and a politics should be proposing ways to prevent it from happening. If your politics does not do this, then your politics is horrendous. I am utterly, utterly shocked that you persist otherwise.

In case you missed it, there's also a post at the bottom of Page 8 that you may want to address...

 

[Richard Masters]

Nonsense.Your response to Francesca when she brought this us included the words, typed by you, "A libertarian government probably wouldn't automatically outlaw such a contract", preceded by an expression that, nevertheless, such contracts were "non-proportional" and therefore implicitly non-desirable.

Read again. I was specifically responding to the question being quoted.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4185978&postcount=233

 

[Richard Masters]

F:
Don't libertarian doctrines hold that blowing out the brains of somebody to protect your privately owned property is both legitimate and "proportional"?

R:
I don't think so. How can it be proportional? Proportional would require a legitimate, non-mistakable threat to your own brains, or those of someone you are protecting. Anything less than that would be non-proportional and ought to be dealt with accordingly.

F:
In our non-libertarian society, it is resolutely illegal to set up a contract providing for execution of one of the parties in the event of their financial delinquency. Are you saying that a "libertarian government" will outlaw such a contract too?

R:
Our society isn't purely non-libertarian. A libertarian government probably wouldn't automatically outlaw such a contract; however, the mental health of those drafting the contract would be subject to question and considered.

 

[volatile]

Read again. I was specifically responding to the question being quoted.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4185978&postcount=233

How can you claim you didn't know we were discussing contracts when in the post where the issue was brought up you mention "such contracts"?!

There's a credibility gap here, Richard, and as I said, the only impression it is giving is that you'd rather commit to "textbook" libertarian answers when pressed hard than acknowledge that your instincts actually lie elsewhere. When pressed, you resort to the pat libertarian answers. When more flowing, more considered, you seem to be quite sensible.

You seem to want to hold onto the identity of libertarian more than you care for the actual ideas and ideologies such an identity would require.

 

[Richard Masters]

I've lost you. What ever are you on about?
Your "problem" was, I suspect, not the product of any particular ideological position in any sense other than it acknowledged an age of majority. Society has deemed that 13 year-olds are not allowed to make their own decisions, for a number of rather sound historical, developmental and psychological reasons.

Not at all. In fact, a court had specifically given me permission to make phone calls. It was completely denied by a particular government institution.

On the other hand, allowing 12 year-olds the "right" to "choose" to work is very much an ideological position, and one that is historically provable to be damaging sociologically, developmentally and ethically.

Not really. All I've been saying is that there are circumstances where your position on child labor is completely dogmatic and useless.

Second, you have not explained how it is unethical in any situation.

And so - your libertopia does not recognise an age of majority. Another black mark against both its sense and its sensibilities.

This is your own invention. I have not implied there is no age of majority.

Child labour is always harmful, and a politics should be proposing ways to prevent it from happening. If your politics does not do this, then your politics is horrendous. I am utterly, utterly shocked that you persist otherwise.

Please continue with your outrage and do not offer any logical argument.

In case you missed it, there's also a post at the bottom of Page 8 that you may want to address...

I'll take a look.

 

[Richard Masters]

How can you claim you didn't know we were discussing contracts when in the post where the issue was brought up you mention "such contracts"?!

I can't prove my intentions and neither can you, so I'll leave it at that.

But if you want an explanation, I read through the first four pages and started skimming everything else as it was repetitive.

There's a credibility gap here, Richard, and as I said, the only impression it is giving is that you'd rather commit to "textbook" libertarian answers when pressed hard than acknowledge that your instincts actually lie elsewhere.

No, my instinct toward contracts is as I specified. You yourself noted that I wasn't following the discussion. Are you going to contradict yourself?

When pressed, you resort to the pat libertarian answers. When more flowing, more considered, you seem to be quite sensible.

Confirmation Bias.

You seem to want to hold onto the identity of libertarian more than you care for the actual ideas and ideologies such an identity would require.

Not really, I've considered relabeling my political tendencies; but I haven't found it necessary until you intervened.

 

[volatile]

Not really. All I've been saying is that there are circumstances where your position on child labor is completely dogmatic and useless.

No, there aren't. If there are circumstances when children "need" to work, then the political solution must be to remove both the labour and the need that gives rise to it.

Second, you have not explained how it is unethical in any situation.

That's a whole 'nother thread. Suffice to say, I do not take your argument that if a 12-year old "needs" to work, or indeed "chooses" to work, holds true in any case whatsover. If this need exists, then an appropriate political program should be striving to remove this need, not accepting it.

This is your own invention. I have not implied there is no age of majority.

Yes, you have. You said that you thought majority should be conferred on an individual basis.

Please continue with your outrage and do not offer any logical argument.

Can you blame me for being outraged when you have over the course of the previous few pages not only proffered but also attempted to justify a political programme which would remove protection for workers, return children to the workhouses if they are "mature enough" to decide they want to and to permit contracts in which the power-holding party is able to execute the weak and needy signatory?

You're damn right that makes me outraged. What you claim to stand for is disgusting and discraceful, and amounts, essentially, to the tyranny of the rich and strong over the poor and weak.

 

[Richard Masters]

No, there aren't. If there are circumstances when children "need" to work, then the political solution must be to remove both the labour and the need that gives rise to it.


That's a whole 'nother thread. Suffice to say, I do not take your argument that if a 12-year old "needs" to work, or indeed "chooses" to work, holds true in any case whatsover. If this need exists, then an appropriate political program should be striving to remove this need, not accepting it.

I completely disagree. We'll have to take it to another thread sometime.

Yes, you have. You said that you thought majority should be conferred on an individual basis.

Pretty much.

Can you blame me for being outraged when you have over the course of the previous few pages not only proffered but also attempted to justify a political programme which would remove protection for workers, return children to the workhouses if they are "mature enough" to decide they want to and to permit contracts in which the power-holding party is able to execute the weak and needy signatory?

That's not the intent of what I am proposing at all. Nor is it the result.

You're damn right that makes me outraged. What you claim to stand for is disgusting and discraceful, and amounts, essentially, to the tyranny of the rich and strong over the poor and weak.

It has nothing to do with tyranny or taking advantage of the weak.

 

[volatile]

I completely disagree.

You completely disagree that political programmes should as a matter of principle bring forth conditions in which child labour is not necessary? And then you have the stomach to claim that tyranny is not the "intended result" of your politics?!

That's not the intent of what I am proposing at all. Nor is it the result.

It has nothing to do with tyranny or taking advantage of the weak.

Yes, it is. Yes it is. And nothing you have posted suggests otherwise.

In a situation where those in need of work or money are not protected at all from the abuse that arises from the inherent power-inequalities in employment or lending, then tyranny ensues. Even with the level of regulation we have at the moment there are enormous problems with loan sharks, with "small print" fraud, with egregious breaches of health and safety law, with corporate manslaughter and all the rest - how on earth do you think your platform, under which people can "choose" to consent to these types of things, will improve the situation?

If you cannot understand or envisage why a world in which there are no mandatory restrictions on signing away your rights to be subject from harm would a terrible world for most people (and most terrible for the most vulnerable), I don't know what more to say. As Darat has explained, history has provided us with these types of libertarian experiments, and the results have been ugly and shameful. I cannot for the life of me understand why you wish not only to repeat them, but to praise them as a force for social good.

You propose, and have supported in this thread, a framework which facilitates harm for a great majority of people, many of which are those we should be instigating policies to protect. You want to go backwards, to turn the clock back to the 19th century.

No thank you.

 

[Earthborn]

Maybe you have the post number wrong.

Whoops! I of course meant #215.

 

[jimbob]

You don't need to worry about any orphans and widows - the whole family would have been in the factory!

Seller and Yateman (1066 and all that)

"During these Wars [i.e. the Napoleonic Wars] many very remarkable discoveries and inventions were made. Most memorable among these was the discovery (made by all the rich men in England at once) that women and children could work for 25 hours a day in factories without many of them dying or becoming excessively deformed. This was known as the Industrial Revelation and completely changed the faces of the North of England.

 

[Francesca R]

I wasn't aware we were discussing contracts. Thus there was no reversal.

Oh yes you were

Are you saying that a "libertarian government" will outlaw such a contract too?

A libertarian government probably wouldn't automatically outlaw such a contract; however, the mental health of those drafting the contract would be subject to question and considered.

Again--thank you for confirming your reversal.

 

[SaulOhio]

I think you have this the wrong way around. When you make ad-hom attacks and strawman then all I will do is point out that you have made ad-hom attacks and strawmen, I am not going to waste anytime arguing against fallacies.

How could I be making strawman arguments? All I have been doing is presenting MY arguments and defending them. I have not attacked anyone else's arguments, so how could I have made a strawman of them?????

Originally Posted by SaulOhio
...snip...

The only answer you have given me to my claims is to tell me I am ignorant of the history. I have heard PLENTY about the history of working conditions in the 19th century. But none of it gives me any reason to believe that it was the laws that really made the difference.

...snip...

OK lets start again, what evidence leads you to form that conclusion?

I didn;t say evidence leads me to form that conclusion. I said there is a LACK of evidence for the conclusion that the labor laws made a big difference. I posted that whole list of countries with heavy labor regulation, and all of them still have sweat shops, child labor, and poverty. The laws are difficult to enforce, because of the economics of the situation. All because of the factors I explained in the post you dimissed as a joke.

Read what I posted, the part you quoted above, and see again what I am arguing. I have not come to a conclusion. I am saying there is no evidence for a conclusion, other than perhapse the post-hoc fallacy.

Hmm... Good a place to start with would be looking up the word "humour" (or humor in an USA dictionary). And then reading the words I posted.

If you respond to one of my arguments with a joke, how am I supposed to respond? Its not an argument. I did recognize it as a joke, a bad, tasteless joke that still implies that you believe libertarians don't think the bad working conditions of the 19th century are a bad thing.

But I have addressed what you have posted i.e. your strawmen, your ad-hom attacks and your apparent ignorance of historic fact.

What ad-hominems? What strawmen? And which historic facts?

There is ONE thing I said that might be misconstrued as an ad-hominem, and I have already apoligized for it. But your obsession with MY ad-hominems seems like the bad cop who ignores his friend's drunk driving and careening all over the sidewalk so he can harass a guy he doesn't like over a burned out tail-light. I have been the target of ad-hominems daily since I joined this fourm, and you have sat by and did nothing, I make one argument that could, MAYBE be called an ad-hominem if interpreted the wrong way, and you are all over me.

As I said above - lets start from the beginning what evidence has lead you to the conclusion that legislation did not alter working conditions in the 19th century?

Did you read my last post? The one where I listed countries with strong labor regulations, but which still have bad working conditions?

Or maybe try responding to my post #173 with some actual argument, besides dismissing it as a joke without argument. What do you say about the economic principles I described?

As for the 19th century, I have already said, there is no actual evidence, except maybe the post-hoc fallacy.

I have read some extreme cases, like that highrise fire that killed a lot of people, which led to improvements in the safety fire codes. I do not disapprove of those improvements. When people die from an employer's negligence, it can be considered a form of initiation of force. I have conceeded that already on this thread. However, most of the improvements in workplace safety come from economic and technological improvements and negotiation between workers and employers. As I said before, any improvement in workplace safety comes as a tradeoff from lower wages.