Libertarianism

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:25 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:Quite right CES. It was his Chicago School acolytes who did the dirty work after being encouraged to go down there and invited by Pinochet. Are they responsible for the actions of that Junta? No, but they supported them right through it rather than going "these sick fuckers are totalitarian."

Not libertarians at all.
That's ridiculous. Citations needed.
Well you won't read them the literature is available. Here's a couple.

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/i ... cale=en_GB

http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/200 ... ypher.html

You could wiki Chigago Boys but that tends to be all based on Niaomi Klein's specific and questionable polemic.
No "dirty work" is ascribed to them in those citations. For example, in the first link, that source discusses how the economists went to Chile AFTER the coup that put Pinochet in power, and it does not allege that the Chicago group helped in any way to put Pinochet in power. They helped push forward in Chile a "free market strategy implemented in a developing country. The ideological strength of their mission and the military authoritarianism of General Pinochet combined to transform an economy that, following the return to democracy, has stabilized and is seen as a model for Latin America." A model for Latin America, because the economy was stabilized. Milton Friedman's position is that the free market strategies helped facilitate the return to democracy.

Friedman didn't support Pinochet's government, and he wanted and advocated for a democratic government. He was not involved with the ousting of Allende or the rise of Pinochet.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Seth » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:03 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:Nice quote work there, Seth.

Basically, libertarianism is social darwinism. Morally repugnant.
What's wrong with social Darwinism? The risk of social failure is a great motivator towards personal responsibility and hard work. Hunger is an even better motivator towards industry and away from sloth.

But you falsely imply that Libertarians don't believe in charity or altruism. This is absolutely not true. Charity, altruism and rational self-interest are vital components of the mature and well-formed Libertarian personality.

The difference between Libertarians and authoritarian collectivists is that Libertarians allow one another to decide for themselves who is worth of their charity, altruism and expressions of rational self-interest, whereas authoritarian collectivists presume that only the central government is capable of properly redistributing wealth (by force) in the interests of the disadvantaged.

Does the Libertarian system mean that some of the indolent dependent class will be made "uncomfortable in their poverty?" Yes, it does, because Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, personal accountability, and personal self-improvement through hard work and rational self-interest. We believe that it is better that a capable underachieving dependent class worker be made uncomfortable, which stimulates his desire to change his social and economic status, than it is to create and sustain a permanent dependent class out of a misguided sense of pity...or worse, and as is usually the case, out of an evil and despotic desire to keep the permanent dependent class dependent on government largesse so that they will unquestioningly support whichever despot or tyrant promises them the most largess from the treasury. Welfare is not about helping the poor, it's about permanently enslaving them to the bidding of those in power.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by MrJonno » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:32 pm

When you are in a tiny minority it really doesnt matter too much what you believe, any system that looks down on the vast majority of humanity has no future
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Audley Strange » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:43 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: No "dirty work" is ascribed to them in those citations. For example, in the first link, that source discusses how the economists went to Chile AFTER the coup that put Pinochet in power, and it does not allege that the Chicago group helped in any way to put Pinochet in power. They helped push forward in Chile a "free market strategy implemented in a developing country. The ideological strength of their mission and the military authoritarianism of General Pinochet combined to transform an economy that, following the return to democracy, has stabilized and is seen as a model for Latin America." A model for Latin America, because the economy was stabilized. Milton Friedman's position is that the free market strategies helped facilitate the return to democracy.

Friedman didn't support Pinochet's government, and he wanted and advocated for a democratic government. He was not involved with the ousting of Allende or the rise of Pinochet.
I never claimed any of that. I claimed his ideas were used by his acolytes during the Pinochet regime. My previous claim was that of Nixon supporting a coup against Allende who was a democratically elected leader. My second claim was that the "Chicago boys" worked alongside Pinochet's brutal regime, and they did the dirty work not Friedman, that dirty work is a matter of public record. They advised Pinochet on how to create a free market and did not give a fuck about the extremist measures taken against the people of Chilé, since many of their suggestions involved tackling left wing activism such as unionization. The years of death squads and differences are a matter of public record. To claim that somehow they were innocent or oblivious to such is, to me, taking the piss.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:49 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: No "dirty work" is ascribed to them in those citations. For example, in the first link, that source discusses how the economists went to Chile AFTER the coup that put Pinochet in power, and it does not allege that the Chicago group helped in any way to put Pinochet in power. They helped push forward in Chile a "free market strategy implemented in a developing country. The ideological strength of their mission and the military authoritarianism of General Pinochet combined to transform an economy that, following the return to democracy, has stabilized and is seen as a model for Latin America." A model for Latin America, because the economy was stabilized. Milton Friedman's position is that the free market strategies helped facilitate the return to democracy.

Friedman didn't support Pinochet's government, and he wanted and advocated for a democratic government. He was not involved with the ousting of Allende or the rise of Pinochet.
I never claimed any of that. I claimed his ideas were used by his acolytes during the Pinochet regime.
Oh, well, that's what I said to. I've said it like 5 times. The ideas were implemented and helped ultimately bring political freedom as well as economic freedom and stability to chile. In other words, it worked.
Audley Strange wrote: My previous claim was that of Nixon supporting a coup against Allende who was a democratically elected leader. My second claim was that the "Chicago boys" worked alongside Pinochet's brutal regime, and they did the dirty work not Friedman, that dirty work is a matter of public record. They advised Pinochet on how to create a free market and did not give a fuck about the extremist measures taken against the people of Chilé, since many of their suggestions involved tackling left wing activism such as unionization. The years of death squads and differences are a matter of public record. To claim that somehow they were innocent or oblivious to such is, to me, taking the piss.
It wasn't dirty work. Creating a free market was a good thing, and ultimately worked to the benefit of the Chilean people.

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Audley Strange » Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:07 pm

Ah I see, supporting and advising a right wing Military dictatorship who is killing its own people in order to enact your reforms, is free market libertarianism, not dirty work for tyrants? If you say so.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:20 pm

Audley Strange wrote:Ah I see, supporting and advising a right wing Military dictatorship who is killing its own people in order to enact your reforms, is free market libertarianism, not dirty work for tyrants? If you say so.
No, free markets are good for freedom, and bad for tyrants. That's why tyrants generally oppose them.

“Chilean economy did very well, but more important, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheigh ... an.html#10

If they kept a command economy in Chile,then you'd very likely not have seen the democratic reforms of 1988.

User avatar
Strontium Dog
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:28 am
About me: Navy Seals are not seals
Location: Liverpool, UK
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Strontium Dog » Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:21 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:I pay taxes to support people who are poorer than me as it is the humane thing to do.
No, you really don't. You may very well be pleased that your taxes, in part, go to support the less well off. But you pay taxes because you are legally obliged to.
100% verifiable facts or your money back. Anti-fascist. Enemy of woo - theistic or otherwise. Cloth is not an antiviral. Imagination and fantasy is no substitute for tangible reality. Wishing doesn't make it real.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by MrJonno » Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:36 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:I pay taxes to support people who are poorer than me as it is the humane thing to do.
No, you really don't. You may very well be pleased that your taxes, in part, go to support the less well off. But you pay taxes because you are legally obliged to.
More worried about the general public killing me if I don't pay taxes than the government
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60853
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:15 am

Cormac wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Well, free-marketeering, like I thought Friedman was an advocate for, would naturally lead to accumulation of capital, and therefore accumulation of power. How do libertarians propose to avoid that situation?

Oh, and by the way, Rothbard and Paul aren't critics of libertarianism. They are liberatarians themselves. They may or may not meet your criteria you just set above, but I don't have any reason to accept your criteria over self-avowed libertarians.
Just for a moment, imagine that I'm a tradesman - a plumber. I was born into a poor family, blighted by unemployment and so on. I managed to get myself trained as a plumber and over the years, I built up a reasonably busy business. At the end of each month, I have a modest excess of income (in other words - after I've paid my taxes and my bills, I have a little left over).

Because I want to provide for my retirement, or for a rainy day, I want to put this "surplus" aside for this purpose. There is no point in putting this money in a bank account - because inflation would strip away any value in the money every year. So I put my money into shares, or bonds, or commodities, or perhaps property - or perhaps I lend it to someone who agrees to pay some interest in addition to the principle in return.

This is accrual of capital. Taxes have been paid all the way along. What is the problem with this?

If I then feel that I would like to give my children a better start than that which I had experienced, and perhaps even my grandchildren - taxes have already been paid on this money - why should I not be able to give them this money?

If I chose instead to invest in an area that the government wishes to develop - and consequently, I enjoy a deferral of taxation. On the liquidation of the investment, I pay taxes and extract my capital and profit. What is the problem with this?

Accrual of Capital is not a bad thing. It is accrued capital that allows investment for the public good in addition to private good.

Capital itself is neutral - all it represents is accrued value/effort.
There's no problem in a general sense with what you describe here. I'm more or less a social democrat, so that makes me still a capitalist of sorts. The question comes down to the level of regulation and redistribution of wealth. I'd be happy for all these things you list to happen, as long as their was appropriate levels of regulation and redistribution. The problem with libertarianism is that it strips regulations away and considers redistribution of wealth an evil/immoral act. So you tend to get widening levels of wealth and income inequality, like we are seeing in the western world since the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by both sides of the divide in the 80's. That disparity in wealth translates to a power imbalance, which itself is a shackle on the freedom of a large part of the population (the idea behind the 99% vs 1% concept). "Economic freedom" benefits most those with more.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60853
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:21 am

Seth wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Nice quote work there, Seth.

Basically, libertarianism is social darwinism. Morally repugnant.
What's wrong with social Darwinism? The risk of social failure is a great motivator towards personal responsibility and hard work. Hunger is an even better motivator towards industry and away from sloth.

But you falsely imply that Libertarians don't believe in charity or altruism. This is absolutely not true. Charity, altruism and rational self-interest are vital components of the mature and well-formed Libertarian personality.

The difference between Libertarians and authoritarian collectivists is that Libertarians allow one another to decide for themselves who is worth of their charity, altruism and expressions of rational self-interest, whereas authoritarian collectivists presume that only the central government is capable of properly redistributing wealth (by force) in the interests of the disadvantaged.

Does the Libertarian system mean that some of the indolent dependent class will be made "uncomfortable in their poverty?" Yes, it does, because Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, personal accountability, and personal self-improvement through hard work and rational self-interest. We believe that it is better that a capable underachieving dependent class worker be made uncomfortable, which stimulates his desire to change his social and economic status, than it is to create and sustain a permanent dependent class out of a misguided sense of pity...or worse, and as is usually the case, out of an evil and despotic desire to keep the permanent dependent class dependent on government largesse so that they will unquestioningly support whichever despot or tyrant promises them the most largess from the treasury. Welfare is not about helping the poor, it's about permanently enslaving them to the bidding of those in power.
I'm not going to debate the specifics, as I've done it a million times before and it bores me; I will say that CES is wrong to assert this is not a part of Libertarianism. There's two great tenets of neo-classical/liberal (and therefore Libertarianist) you mention/imply in there: 1 - rational actors; and 2 - Money is the only major incentive that matters to people. Both of these are fallacies and have been debunked time and time again. But it should serve to show to CES that you are indeed a Libertarian and what you stand for does represent Libertarianism (if perhaps a bit more openly than some other libertarians).
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60853
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:26 am

Strontium Dog wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:I pay taxes to support people who are poorer than me as it is the humane thing to do.
No, you really don't. You may very well be pleased that your taxes, in part, go to support the less well off. But you pay taxes because you are legally obliged to.
Are you suggesting the two are mutually exclusive? Of course I pay because I am obliged to. But I'm happy to have a social system that requires people, including myself, to pay taxes for the good of society. And that includes supporting people less fortunate than me.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60853
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:27 am

MrJonno wrote:
Strontium Dog wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:I pay taxes to support people who are poorer than me as it is the humane thing to do.
No, you really don't. You may very well be pleased that your taxes, in part, go to support the less well off. But you pay taxes because you are legally obliged to.
More worried about the general public killing me if I don't pay taxes than the government
Jonno, you are one giant messed up mofo. I'd suggest seeing a psychologist, man.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Seth » Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:55 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:Cormac, some time ago that seemed to be overwhelmingly laudable and applauded by most. More and more, though, I hear people suggest that what you just described is the great evil in the world that needs to be stopped.
You hear it from people who have no capital, have no interest in creating wealth so that they can build capital, and who want to take the capital that others have away from them and redistribute it to themselves.

In other words, you hear it from Marxists.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Libertarianism

Post by Seth » Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:06 am

rEvolutionist wrote: There's no problem in a general sense with what you describe here. I'm more or less a social democrat, so that makes me still a capitalist of sorts. The question comes down to the level of regulation and redistribution of wealth. I'd be happy for all these things you list to happen, as long as their was appropriate levels of regulation and redistribution. The problem with libertarianism is that it strips regulations away and considers redistribution of wealth an evil/immoral act.
That's because forcible redistribution of wealth is an evil and immoral act. What argument do you have that morally supports you, or your minions in government, deciding that you can better decide how to dispose of my labor and capital than I can? What argument do you have that supports the immoral and evil practice of enslaving person A and confiscating the fruits of his labor to the service of persons Z through T, with whom person A has absolutely no relationship and to whom person A has no moral, ethical or legal obligation of support?

In short, why am I obliged to fork over the fruits of my labor for your use and enjoyment? Lets see if for once you can formulate a well-reasoned and logical argument that addresses the root evil of collectivism, which is the proposition that the individual owes to the collective more by way of labor than is required to compensate the collective for his individual use of the resources and benefits of society.

I've never yet met a single socialist who even dares to address this core fault of socialism. Do you have the balls to give it a shot? For once.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests