Libertarianism Declared Dead

[Mister Agenda]

Definitions of Libertarian on the Web:

a person who belongs to the Libertarian political party.
www.enchantedlearning.com/election/glossary.shtml

are best described by the World’s Smallest Political Quiz on the next page.
www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/docs_files/saint_files/terms.htm

an advocate of libertarianism
someone who believes the doctrine of free will
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Libertarianism is a broad collection of political philosophies possessing the common themes of limited government and strong individual liberty. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

One who advocates liberty either generally or on a specific issue, e.g. "civil libertarian" (in favour of civil liberties); A believer in a political doctrine that emphasises individual liberty and a lack of governmental regulation and oversight both in matters of the economy ('free market ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libertarian

one who advocates individual rights and free will
cueflash.com/Decks/eng22

 

[Richard Masters]

Oh yes you were
Again--thank you for confirming your reversal.

Excellent argument. The equivalent of "yah-huh."

 

[Richard Masters]

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?!

Yes, I completely disagree. I'm sorry you find that hard to believe.

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?

Maybe because you continue to misconstrue my argument so you can feign outrage.

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.

Because that's a huge straw-man. You envision something entirely different from what I have suggested.

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.

Yes, that's precisely what I want to do.

 

[SaulOhio]

Yes because we have seen what happens when this is allowed: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4181720#post4181720

Not necessarily. I have already conceded that having a child work in a room with dust so thick you can't see anyone, so she gets sick with her lungs clogged with that dust, can be considered an initiation of force, and therefore is something the government can and should outlaw. Especially because its a minor child, who is not fully competent to make decisions for herself.

But given that, and working conditions that are not that immediately harmfull, Richard's question still stands:

Would you deny a 12 year old the right to work to help his sick mother?

Unless you, PERSONALLY, are willing to help them out, or can gather voluntary donations to help, what right do you have to keep people from doing what they need to to survive?

Whoops! I of course meant #215.

I have already conceded that my comparing the rejection of ideologies to superstition might be construed as an ad-hominem, and apologized. But other than that, what is wrong with the argument in that post? The Objectivist philosophy which I believe and practice is a hierarchical structure, and each idea is connected to all the rest. When someone argues against an idea out of context of the more fundamental ideas on which it depends, it is easy for them to construct a strawman argument.

I have given two examples from Objectivism, and I think they apply to Libertarianism, as well. You can't use the right to property as a defense of the right to slavery, because the right to property depends on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If people, such as slaves, don't have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is no point to property rights.

Ayn Rand even had a name for this kind of fallacy, "the stolen concept".

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

They may be doing this by accident, not understanding the connection between the two ideas as they are formulated in Objectivism. But sometimes it seems intentional. Maybe I should give people the benefit of the doubt more often, but its hard to do that with all the kneejerk hostility I see on this forum.

 

[SaulOhio]

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.

To be precise, I should have said "there is no evidence from the history of the 19th century that the labor laws made much of a difference."

I do follow it up with the evidence of other countries with strict labor laws, which still have very bad working conditions, low wages, and mass poverty, and the economic principles that explain why.

 

[Richard Masters]

Really? Think about the consequences of such a belief system if allowed to propagate through society - if it were legally possible for those who were needy enough for a loan, or a job to sign such a contract.

Then tell me again with a straight face you think such a society would be a nice place to live.

If they are needy enough to do something like that, then they must have no other alternatives. One could go further and claim that such a contract is invalid due for reasons of duress.

What about if they were poor and needed a job? Or just a regular human being and, given that there was no regulation to the contrary, all jobs were inherently unsafe?

Do you need regulation to know what is safe and what isn't? Do you think working conditions remained the same from the stone age to the 1800s? Or do you suspect that implicit regulations were instituted by social contract?

As Darat pointed out, before health and safety laws, companies were unheathy and unsafe.

There was one instance shown. Are you saying there were no safe companies to work at? How did we survive to the 1800s if that was the case?

What makes you think that in Libertopia, companies will magically choose to conform to safe working practices? Your politics shows a profound lack of understanding of history, politics, economics and human nature.

Because the benefits of safe working practices have been proven? Because of civil lawsuits on behalf of those people harmed?

 

[Richard Masters]

One more thing, it is shown conclusively that the 8-hour work day limits social activities with family which has a negative impact on the well-being of children. Furthermore, the 8-hour work day is harmful both physically and psychologically in comparison to the 3-hour workday.

Should we enforce a 3-hour work day across the world? What about people who want to buy an extra Christmas present? Should we jail them for working the extra hour?

Should we ban all driving because it is proven to be unsafe? Should all cars be recalled until there are no accidents on the road? What about life expectancy? Shouldn't we enforce a life-expectancy of 80 years?

Should we get rid of all the fluorescent lightbulbs in California? They contain toxic levels of Mercury and cause seizures in a sizable minority of the population.

Children should not be allowed to make their beds after they wake up because that's child labor, and people should not be allowed to live in Florida because who wants to live in a world where people are killed by hurricanes twice a year.

Nobody should be allowed to live on the East and West Coast, or in the UK, even by contract because it is utterly dangerous. Do you really want to turn back the clock to 2004 or should we protect the UK by moving everyone to the plains in Kansas, even if they prefer to take their chances in the UK?

 

[Richard Masters]

On the 8 hour work week

 

[Richard Masters]

Let's ban all space walks too. Let's stop living in 1969.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

...snip...

I suggest you look up the history of the "Factory Laws" in the UK.

...snip...

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.

...snip...

For a start that wasn't in response to anything you had posted and you may think they are "a bad thing" however your chosen ideology's principles don't.

...snip...
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.

...snip..

I've no obsession with anything you've posted, and it would seem that you are arguing that if you make fallacies you shouldn't be called on it if other people have also been making fallacies, that's a very strange attitude for someone promoting a libertarian ideology!

...snip...


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

...snip..

Wow.

...snip...

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.

Evidence?

 

[volatile]

Wow.

I just woke up... did I dream those last few posts, where the libertarians posting in this thread tacitly endorsed dangerous working practices and child labour, and compared working in a sweatshop to making one's bed in the morning?

Did I? *rubs eyes*

 

[Earthborn]

But other than that, what is wrong with the argument in that post?

You complained that almost all arguments against free market ideas were strawman, while you have claimed that other ideologies such as fascism and communism were based on "a rejection of reason" that they are "immune to self critical examination" and "incompatible with human nature"... which are all strawmen.

The Objectivist philosophy which I believe and practice is a hierarchical structure, and each idea is connected to all the rest.

It's a bit of an up-side-down house of cards if you ask me.

When someone argues against an idea out of context of the more fundamental ideas on which it depends, it is easy for them to construct a strawman argument.

Not everyone will agree with Objectivists which ideas are more fundamental.

You can't use the right to property as a defense of the right to slavery, because the right to property depends on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And yet slave owners have done exactly that, which disproves that it "can't" be done.

If people, such as slaves, don't have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is no point to property rights.

You are implicitely assuming another moral idea: that people need to be treated equally. That the life, liberty an happiness of the slaves is just as important than that of the slave owner. Someone who rejects those premises, arguing that slavery can be justified on the basis of property rights is not commiting a Stolen Concept fallacy.

 

[SaulOhio]

For a start that wasn't in response to anything you had posted and you may think they are "a bad thing" however your chosen ideology's principles don't.

Apparently, you have no clue about my ideology.

I've no obsession with anything you've posted, and it would seem that you are arguing that if you make fallacies you shouldn't be called on it if other people have also been making fallacies, that's a very strange attitude for someone promoting a libertarian ideology!

I am not saying I should not be called out on it. I am saying that THEY SHOULD BE AS WELL!@R#$#^%#!!!!!

And you, as an administrator, have the authority to do more than call me out on it. On most of the forums I have been on, ad-hominems are a kickable offense. Are you threatening me with that? I tend to assume you are.

As I said before, any improvement in workplace safety comes as a tradeoff from lower wages.

Evidence?

So where do you think the resources, not just the money, but the resources to make those improvements come from? Like I said, it will cost the employer money. It has to come out of wages or profits. If it comes out of profits, it will reduce the amount investors are willing to put into that industry, and total wages payed in the industry will be reduced anyway.

I just woke up... did I dream those last few posts, where the libertarians posting in this thread tacitly endorsed dangerous working practices and child labour, and compared working in a sweatshop to making one's bed in the morning?

Did I? *rubs eyes*

Yes, you dreamed it. Go back and re-read what you think is a comparison between working in sweatshops and making a bad. You are making connections that Richard Marten's didn't.

He was only comparing child labor to making one's bed. Nothing in that sentance was about the working conditions.

You complained that almost all arguments against free market ideas were strawman, while you have claimed that other ideologies such as fascism and communism were based on "a rejection of reason" that they are "immune to self critical examination" and "incompatible with human nature"... which are all strawmen.

Goering wrote:
"Just as the Roman Catholic considers the Pope infallible in all matters concerning religion and morals, so do we National Socialists believe with the same inner conviction that for us the Leader is in all political and other matters concerning the national and social interests of the people simply infallible. "-- Quoted by Leonard Peikoff in The Ominous Parallels

Marxists routinely dismisses their critics as using "bourgeoise thinking", while they themselves were using "proletariat thinking".

And yet slave owners have done exactly that, which disproves that it "can't" be done.

By "it can't be done" I mean that it is a fallacy. I would have thought that would be obvious, since I SAID THAT!

 

[Darat]

Apparently, you have no clue about my ideology.

Well I am well versed in libertarian ideaology. If you are not arguing for libertarianism then you may be correct.

I am not saying I should not be called out on it. I am saying that THEY SHOULD BE AS WELL!@R#$#^%#!!!!!

Yet again a very strange position for someone arguing for libertarianism (as I have assumed you are), why is there any obligation on me to do what you think I should? Why does what other people post have to be taken into account regarding your posts? Are you not responsible for your own posts?

And you, as an administrator, have the authority to do more than call me out on it. On most of the forums I have been on, ad-hominems are a kickable offense. Are you threatening me with that? I tend to assume you are.

Again what on earth are you jabbering on about?

So where do you think the resources, not just the money, but the resources to make those improvements come from? Like I said, it will cost the employer money. It has to come out of wages or profits. If it comes out of profits, it will reduce the amount investors are willing to put into that industry, and total wages payed in the industry will be reduced anyway.

....snip...

Still no evidence?

 

[SaulOhio]

Yet again a very strange position for someone arguing for libertarianism (as I have assumed you are), why is there any obligation on me to do what you think I should? Why does what other people post have to be taken into account regarding your posts? Are you not responsible for your own posts?

Yet again, I have to explain to you. I take full responsibility for my posts. But you are employing a double standard, holding me responsible for mine, but letting everyone else throw around any ad hominems they want.

So unless you call them out on their ad hominems, why do you bother with mine?

Like I said, you are like the cop who ignores his friend's drunk driving in order to go after someone else's burnded out tail-light.

Again what on earth are you jabbering on about?

Are you not an administrator of this forum, with the authority to remove people who break the rules?

And ad-hominem attacks are a violation of the rules on all civilized forums, and a kickable offense.

So is this a forum dedicated to rational debate, or a pissing contest?

Still no evidence?

What is the evidence for Newton's laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics?

You can easily dismiss anyone's claims to have invented a perpetual motion machines, because energy doesn't come from nowhere.

I can similarly dismiss claims that the government can create wealth through legislation based on basic economic principles. For the labor laws to have made a significant difference, they would have had to create the means to improve workplace safety when the resources were not available to the free market.

Additional ventilation, better lighting, especially air conditioning, costs money. Where does this money come from?

Remember that before air conditioning, all indoor workplaces were quite literally "sweat shops". That is an extreme example, but you get the idea.

If the resources to improve working conditions don't exist, no legislation will make them appear out of nowhere.

This is why I sometimes say that Austrian economics is the only school of economics which takes the conservation of mass into account.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Snip
Not everyone will agree with Objectivists which ideas are more fundamental.

Quite true. But Objectivists are in a position to dictate which ideas are more fundamental to them. Pointing out non-Objectivists may not prioritize the same way is not actually a criticism, merely pointing out the obvious.

And yet slave owners have done exactly that, which disproves that it "can't" be done.

Sigh. It can't be justified with Objectivist philosophy. It isn't a criticism of Objectivism to point out some other philosophy can justify slavery.

You are implicitely assuming another moral idea: that people need to be treated equally. That the life, liberty an happiness of the slaves is just as important than that of the slave owner. Someone who rejects those premises, arguing that slavery can be justified on the basis of property rights is not commiting a Stolen Concept fallacy.

It's not an implicit idea, Objectivism makes it very explicit. You are correct, the slave owner who argues that slavery can be justified on the basis of property rights is not commiting a Stolen Concept fallacy. Someone who argues that the Objectivist take on property rights justifies slavery is committing that fallacy. You're in good company, however, as this thread has its share of fallacies on every side.

No True Scotsman: You're not a Scotsman unless you believe/support what I think Scotsmen believe/support.

Strawman: When your responses differ from those of the Scotsman in my head, I will continue to represent your position as conforming to my preconceptions.

For some people, what is considered reasonable argumentation apparently varies depending on whose ox is being gored.

 

[Darat]

Yet again, I have to explain to you. I take full responsibility for my posts.

...snip...

So why do you keep going on about other people's posts?

But you are employing a double standard, holding me responsible for mine,
...snip...

I hold everyone responsible for their posts not just you so that is isn't a double standard.

...snip.. but letting everyone else throw around any ad hominems they want.

...snip...

I have not "let" you or anyone else (as you put it) throw any ad hominems around so your claim is simply factually incorrect.

(All this does seem rather far from a discussion regarding libertarianism will you be explaining how it is related shortly?)

So unless you call them out on their ad hominems, why do you bother with mine?

...snip...

Glad to see that you have now acknowledged that you do throw out ad hominems - earlier you were claiming that you hadn't been. That aside I have a free choice to decide to whom I respond, as a libertarian I would have thought you'd be encouraging that, not complaining about the result of me having a free choice.

Like I said, you are like the cop who ignores his friend's drunk driving in order to go after someone else's burnded out tail-light.

...snip...

Like I said your ad hominems don't move a discussion forward.

Are you not an administrator of this forum, with the authority to remove people who break the rules?

...snip...

Yes but so what?

And ad-hominem attacks are a violation of the rules on all civilized forums, and a kickable offense. So is this a forum dedicated to rational debate, or a pissing contest?

...snip...

I am sure being a libertarian you carefully read the Registration Agreement when you decided to join so you will have a good idea of what is allowed and is not allowed. However I do know that this is now very much off-topic since you apparently want to discuss a Forum Management issue in the middle of a thread in the Economics, Business and Finance section!

What is the evidence for Newton's laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics?

You can easily dismiss anyone's claims to have invented a perpetual motion machines, because energy doesn't come from nowhere

I can similarly dismiss claims that the government can create wealth through legislation based on basic economic principles. For the labor laws to have made a significant difference, they would have had to create the means to improve workplace safety when the resources were not available to the free market.



Additional ventilation, better lighting, especially air conditioning, costs money. Where does this money come from?

Remember that before air conditioning, all indoor workplaces were quite literally "sweat shops". That is an extreme example, but you get the idea.

If the resources to improve working conditions don't exist, no legislation will make them appear out of nowhere.

This is why I sometimes say that Austrian economics is the only school of economics which takes the conservation of mass into account.

Please go back and check what I asked you to provide evidence for, hint - this wasn't it.

 

[Francesca R]

Again what on earth are you jabbering on about?

My interpretation of this is that SaulOhio thinks that more stringent standards are being sought of SaulOhio's posts than those of other members, and/or harsher sanctions are being, or might be applied in SaulOhio's case, and that (presumably) this is a conspiracy since it is being done covertly.

I could be wrong but that's my guess, but it's not an issue for this sub forum.

 

[Francesca R]

Excellent argument. The equivalent of "yah-huh."

Eh what? You seem to forget it was your argument that took up several pages and has now been dropped by you.

Here is the original statement I made on page 1:

Perhaps if people experiencing non-payment of debt owed could threaten and use lethal force (after all it is defence of their property) then the credit crisis would have seen seamless resolution without the daylight robbery of bailouts.

This had libertarians, belatedly you included, up in arms about "proportionality" and claiming that this was not a libertarian stance. And yet we now agree that it is. Kindly forget about "duress" and "mental health" because you are conjuring such safeguards erroneously into effect on behalf of a libertarian ideology which eschews them.

Thus, libertarianism is a set of principles which is irretrievably and most repugnantly damaging to people's liberty.

 

[Chaos]

(All this does seem rather far from a discussion regarding libertarianism will you be explaining how it is related shortly?)

Like I said your ad hominems don't move a discussion forward.

I am sure being a libertarian you carefully read the Registration Agreement when you decided to join so you will have a good idea of what is allowed and is not allowed. However I do know that this is now very much off-topic since you apparently want to discuss a Forum Management issue in the middle of a thread in the Economics, Business and Finance section!

Don´t say that. He will just consider himself threatened with use of Rule 11 against him.

Apparently, for Libertarians enforcing the JREF´s own rules on the JREF´s own property is illegal, not to mention a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed rights. I think that´s because the rules are enforced, not endiscussed or ennegotiated, and you know what Libertarians think about the initiation of force.