Libertarianism

[Svartalf]

Uh? you take it the other way, benefit to the workers is a benefit to the boss, not the other way around.

[Seth]

Think about what's been happening in the Middle East. Now think about Tea Party rallies and Protests where the people were armed. now think about about the Occupy movement where they weren't. Needing to be armed to protect yourself from the government forces there to, "Keep you safe," is only an outdated romantic notion to somebody who isn't paying attention.

If people start taking that seriously, and going armed to protests, and using those arms if the police wish to arrest someone, you are heading for the US to become another Iraq...

Peaceful, unarmed protest is a vital component to the democratic tradition, but if you go beyond that, you have a "means justify the ends" scenario that will descend into anarchy....

No, peaceful protest is a vital component to the democratic tradition. It matters not whether the protesters are armed or not so long as they remain peaceable. As the Tea Party protests proved, armed law-abiding citizens are highly unlikely to start randomly shooting people just because they are protesting. It does allow them, however, to respond appropriately if attacked by socialist SEIU thugs trying to quash the legal protest.

The last time I went UNarmed to a protest was about 1970. And that includes Glen Beck's 9/11 rally in Washington, DC, where I completely illegally carried my H&K P7 9mm at all times (except when I had to go through metal detectors at the Capitol) because, well, fuck the DC police and Mayor. They don't have the legitimate power to disarm me, so I didn't let them do so out of fear. I just kept it well concealed and did as I pleased.

[Seth]

Uh? you take it the other way, benefit to the workers is a benefit to the boss, not the other way around.

Depends on what you mean by "benefit." What benefits the boss' bottom line axiomatically benefits his employees because without profit there would be no business and without the business there would be no jobs. Business owners, you see, don't invest their savings and time in order to employ people, they employ people in order to make a profit on the investment of their savings and time. The employees benefit because the business owner is willing to take risks that THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO TAKE. They get paid what they do because they prefer the security of a regular paycheck over the risks inherent in owning and operating a business. Less risk for the wage laborer means lower reward for the work done. Those who risk the most deserve the most compensation.

That's what socialists and Marxists refuse to understand. Risk is valid "labor" when it comes to calculating who is entitled to what in the economic transaction.

[Seth]

Can I ask a question? It seems to me that in some respects (apropos motorways and health) that if businesses wish their employees to arrive on time and be healthy enough to work that they should be paying for infra-structure upkeep rather than the workforce of a nation being coerced by government to pay for them, since it specifically benefits their businesses. As such would a libertarian have issue with corporations being compelled to pay for the upkeep of roads or health insurance for their employees rather than fobbing off the responsibility to millions of strangers who benefit little from it?

You obviously do not understand the basic tenets of libertarian capitalism.

It boils down to being free to make as much money as you can, by hook or by crook if that helps, but without having to pay for any infrastructure or anything, let the serfs slave away some more to fund that.

Lie.

[Seth]

Think about what's been happening in the Middle East. Now think about Tea Party rallies and Protests where the people were armed. now think about about the Occupy movement where they weren't. Needing to be armed to protect yourself from the government forces there to, "Keep you safe," is only an outdated romantic notion to somebody who isn't paying attention.

Until the day the gummint actually sends in the army with orders to shoot "rioters, sedition sower, and anybody breaking the public peace"... that day, the Occupy guys are going to be slaughtered... at least the tea baggers can shoot back.

Yup, exactly. And we will.

[Svartalf]

Uh? you take it the other way, benefit to the workers is a benefit to the boss, not the other way around.

Depends on what you mean by "benefit." What benefits the boss' bottom line axiomatically benefits his employees because without profit there would be no business and without the business there would be no jobs. Business owners, you see, don't invest their savings and time in order to employ people, they employ people in order to make a profit on the investment of their savings and time. The employees benefit because the business owner is willing to take risks that THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO TAKE. They get paid what they do because they prefer the security of a regular paycheck over the risks inherent in owning and operating a business. Less risk for the wage laborer means lower reward for the work done. Those who risk the most deserve the most compensation.

That's what socialists and Marxists refuse to understand. Risk is valid "labor" when it comes to calculating who is entitled to what in the economic transaction.

Roads that are good, well maintained, and free, allow the easy transport of goods to markets, and reduce the cost of doing business across distances. Health benefits ensure that the worker can get treatment and reduce the dangerousness of disease and accidents, as well as possible aftereffects, meaning there will be fewer sick days, and that the boss is less likely to have to replace a skilled worker with a green one without notice... that kind of thing.
Basically the same as the boss reducing his bottom line to give his workers decent pay means less likelihood that they will leave him, or one day rise in anger and murder him.

Remember, bosses are not founts of wealth, and they need the little people more than the little people need bosses... after all, if one boss dies, one can find another, or start one's own biz.

Oh, and please demonstrate how I am a liar?

[Hermit]

Well, a benefit to the business owner is a benefit to the employees, is it not? If the business does not prosper and profit, the employees will not get paid, now will they?

[Drewish]

Oh no! They're responding with valid points to ours! Quick, we'd better post a political image attacking a straw man!

[Coito ergo sum]

I think if folks would step back a bit, and instead of just making this about which team wins, we might get a more balanced understanding of Libertarianism. One hint that I would give those who are railing against it is that much of what you're saying about libertarianism (that it means that everyone is supposed to run around screwing the little guy, that there can be no government or government infrastructure, etc) are just repeating straw men. That isn't what libertarianism is.

I mean - libertarianism, involves, in part, laissez-faire capitalism. But, laissez-faire capitalism does not mean "anarchy." Laissez-faire capitalism arose under governmental systems and exist in all cases under systems of government. There can be publicly funded roadways and such, and there can be systems of laws and regulations.

Perhaps if folks looked into it a little bit, they would stop with these canards like the old, "oh, yeah! What about police forces and fire brigades, huh!!! what say you, libertarians!!!" Hah! Gotcha!

[MrJonno]

If someone wants to come up with form libertarianism that doesn't rely on a person being born with natural rights then there is a conversation to be had. Anyone who starts with that believe really has no basis in reality to form any sensible view of politics.

Rights are created by people (with the word created being the important one) and are implemented via government, no government no rights

[Seth]

If someone wants to come up with form libertarianism that doesn't rely on a person being born with natural rights then there is a conversation to be had. Anyone who starts with that believe really has no basis in reality to form any sensible view of politics.

Rights are created by people (with the word created being the important one) and are implemented via government, no government no rights

We disagree. Rights are a codification of human behavior and interaction that can, fundamentally, be traced directly to naturalistic biological behavior. In other words, government, which is an artifice and construct of the human mind used to resolve conflicts between the expressions of rights by individuals, is not necessary for the expression of rights to take place. Therefore, government cannot grant that which it has no part in creating. It can only regulate the expression of rights in a society. Absent society, humans, like other animals, will express their inherent and unalienable rights as best benefits them and their progeny, and will only accede to restrictions on those expressions when those restrictions provide a greater benefit overall.

For example, I need no government whatsoever to tell me that I have a right to life, liberty and property. Like any living creature, I can and will defend those rights against encroachments with or without the existence, let or hindrance of government. Government does not grant me a right to life, nature does. Government does not grant me a right to liberty, nature does. Government does not grant me a right to property, nature does.

[MrJonno]

As I said before that just warped form of animism the worship of nature as opposed to mere fascination by it. Nature is shit and is something to be overcome. Everything we have in civilization is despite our nature not because of it

[Seth]

As I said before that just warped form of animism the worship of nature as opposed to mere fascination by it. Nature is shit and is something to be overcome. Everything we have in civilization is despite our nature not because of it

Nonetheless, you cannot refute the claim that humans express rights in the complete absence of government, and therefore logically government cannot be the source of rights. It can only be the controller or guarantor of rights, not their origin. Rights come first, government comes later as a method of adjudicating conflicts in the expression of rights.

[MrJonno]

Humans do not express rights in the absence of other people, if you get two people locked in a room or country government forms just by one dominating the other.

On a desert island you have a desire to breath you have no such right

[Coito ergo sum]

If someone wants to come up with form libertarianism that doesn't rely on a person being born with natural rights then there is a conversation to be had. Anyone who starts with that believe really has no basis in reality to form any sensible view of politics.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural rights are, and belies an individual who has not read the first thing about natural rights (e.g. Thomases Hobbes, Locke and Paine, and Immanuel Kant). Kant and Paine, of course, purported to derive natural rights through reason. Read, e.g. Paine's "Age of Reason" and "Rights of Man." And, see, Kant's "Groundwork on Metaphysics and Morals" and his "Critique of Pure Reason." The underpinnings for the Enlightenment thinkers in this area can be found in major ancient philosophers, like Lucretius (de rerum natura), the Epicurean philosophers, etc.

Much if this is commonly used, albeit normally unconsciously, by atheists who claim to be able to reason a morality, a right and wrong, from human nature. They say we need no gods to discern through reason what is "right" and what is "wrong," and similarly, the Paines, Lockes and Kants used different verbiage to say similar things -- that we can discern the rights of mankind through reason and experience.

Rights are created by people (with the word created being the important one) and are implemented via government, no government no rights

This is one view of it. However, governments are not things in themselves either and they have not independent existence. They are creatures created by human beings, and what a government assigns as a right is what people assign as rights. No people, no government, no rights. No government, no rights. Simplify the equation - no people, no rights. That, of course, is axiomatic. But, since the people create both the government and the rights, it doesn't make much sense to posit the government as an independent agency any more than rights are self-creating. They are both created by people.

Now, this brings us to libertarianism. Full disclosure - I am not a libertarian, but I am more of a "classical liberal." But, libertarianism's philosophical basis and rationale can be found starting with Lao Tzu's writings, Etienne de la Boetie, John Locke (noted above), the British "Leveller" movement. See David Boaz's book on Libertarianism.

I think to hand-wave it away may be an attractive option, given that some of the capital-L "Libertarians" can come across as very absolutist and judgmental, but if folks would look into it a bit, they would see that it is a far more nuanced and interesting philosophical viewpoint than many folks give it credit for.