Libertarianism

[pErvinalia]

You still haven't justified why Person A should be compelled to labor on behalf of Person B. Person A has a responsibility to labor on behalf of himself and perhaps those he has taken financial and social responsibility for in order to pay his fair share of the costs of providing a healthy, stable and lawful society. But again, what is your rational justification for causing Person A to pay more than Person B for the direct benefit of Person B. And why is Person B not required to labor on his own behalf to pay for his fair share of the costs of providing him with a healthy, stable and lawful society?

Well, person B generally IS required to labour on his his own behalf if he is physically able to. I don't know of anywhere where you can get unlimited dole money without searching for work and taking work skills programs, and indeed being forceably enrolled in a work for the dole programme like is happening in neoliberal economies everywhere now. There will always be a small percentage of people who can't work, either through physical disability or effective mental disability from an abusive upbringing, and the odd lazy person. There's no need to punish other honest people who are going through hard times. As we keep mentioning to you, that is the cost of living in a stable and civilised society. It's an understanding that not everyone can be happily employed and mentally and physically healthy at all times throughout their lives.

Evasion, obfuscation and pettifoggery! Answer the question...for once.

I DID answer the question. "And why is Person B not required to labor on his own behalf to pay for his fair share of the costs of providing him with a healthy, stable and lawful society?" It's not my fault you failed to put a question mark on the sentence before.

What is your rational moral justification for forcing Person A to labor against his will on behalf of Person B.

I've answered this a million times before. The social contract. A man isn't an island. He's part of a society. Society need upkeep for health and stability. THAT's the moral justification. Just because you don't like my morals, doesn't mean I am not presenting a moral justification.

You seem to believe that Person A, simply because he's better at laboring and is compensated at a higher rate, somehow owes MORE than his fair share of the costs of government.

No. As explained, we happen to disagree what "fair share" means. Your assessment is just as arbitrary as my assessment. Although, evidence clearly shows that as wealth inequality grows, so does social dysfunction.

So, how do you determine what a "fair share" is in your preferred system?

Well, I'd go by metrics of social health. Happiness, health, level of crime, poverty level, imprisonment level etc etc. If reductions in taxation and social service provision lead to a worsening of those metrics, then I'd say a fair share isn't being paid. If those metrics were high and stable then I'd say a fair share IS being paid.

The other point of disagreement is that Person A necessarily is "better at laboring" just because he is richer. They might be in some cases, but that isn't a given.

Pettifoggery. If he's making more money than Person B, his value to the marketplace for labor is higher. Why should Person A have to sacrifice his labor to Person B merely because his labor is more valuable in the marketplace than Person B's? That's like saying that because Apple makes more money selling computers than IBM does, Apple must be required to fork over part of its profits to IBM.
On what moral theory or basis would Person A owe Person B the fruits of his labor?

Well, usually labour is paid out fairly equitably I guess. Although, when you look at CEO's and their ridiculous pay, that clearly seems inequitable to me. And it's no surprise that this happens, as I don't think the free-market is a rational judge of anything. The free-market is based on flawed premises, and as such the results it produces are suboptimal. Additional problems start happening when you get into investment of capital. That's not labour. It might be valuable "work" of sorts. But you should be clearer if that's what you mean.

What is your rational argument that supports this claim? Why is the better, more efficient, more effective laborer who creates more wealth per unit of work obliged to pay a larger share of the costs of government than Person B, who is less industrious and less valuable as a worker?

I don't accept your premises.

As usual you're evading the issue, as you always do because you CANNOT provide a rational moral analysis of why Person A must be compelled to labor on behalf of Person B.

I reject your premises because, as CES pointed out, capitalism ISN'T a meritocracy. Only loons like you on the fringe think it is.

And that's why Marxists like you always evade the essential moral argument of Marxist collectivism.

I'm a capitalist, Seth. How the fuck can I be a Marxist?

You assume a priori that "fairness" (however Marxism defines that rather loose and mutable term on any given day as applied to any given person) automatically answers all questions about enslaving one person to the service of another. It doesn't. You have NEVER, EVER been able to construct any sort of rational moral argument for the basic premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Ever.

That's because I am not a Marxist.

I doubt you ever will because you know full well there IS NO moral argument to be made in support of Marxist collectivist slavery of the "upper classes," much less the common Marxist practice of simply exterminating the "upper classes" (read: "anyone who has more than me") and expropriating what was once theirs. Stalin and Mao did rather a lot of that, and you're in the same class as they are because you have no moral foundation for your philosophy other than avarice, greed, jealousy and envy of those who are better off than you are.

I AM Stalin!

[Seth]

You still haven't justified why Person A should be compelled to labor on behalf of Person B. Person A has a responsibility to labor on behalf of himself and perhaps those he has taken financial and social responsibility for in order to pay his fair share of the costs of providing a healthy, stable and lawful society. But again, what is your rational justification for causing Person A to pay more than Person B for the direct benefit of Person B. And why is Person B not required to labor on his own behalf to pay for his fair share of the costs of providing him with a healthy, stable and lawful society?

Well, person B generally IS required to labour on his his own behalf if he is physically able to. I don't know of anywhere where you can get unlimited dole money without searching for work and taking work skills programs, and indeed being forceably enrolled in a work for the dole programme like is happening in neoliberal economies everywhere now. There will always be a small percentage of people who can't work, either through physical disability or effective mental disability from an abusive upbringing, and the odd lazy person. There's no need to punish other honest people who are going through hard times. As we keep mentioning to you, that is the cost of living in a stable and civilised society. It's an understanding that not everyone can be happily employed and mentally and physically healthy at all times throughout their lives.

Evasion, obfuscation and pettifoggery! Answer the question...for once.

I DID answer the question. "And why is Person B not required to labor on his own behalf to pay for his fair share of the costs of providing him with a healthy, stable and lawful society?" It's not my fault you failed to put a question mark on the sentence before.

No you didn't, you never have.

What is your rational moral justification for forcing Person A to labor against his will on behalf of Person B.

I've answered this a million times before. The social contract. A man isn't an island. He's part of a society. Society need upkeep for health and stability. THAT's the moral justification. Just because you don't like my morals, doesn't mean I am not presenting a moral justification.

And Person A provides a portion of his labor for the upkeep of society by way of taxes to pay for services and amenities he enjoys. But again, what is your moral argument (other than an evasive generality) for forcing Person A to labor on behalf of Person B?

You seem to believe that Person A, simply because he's better at laboring and is compensated at a higher rate, somehow owes MORE than his fair share of the costs of government.

No. As explained, we happen to disagree what "fair share" means. Your assessment is just as arbitrary as my assessment. Although, evidence clearly shows that as wealth inequality grows, so does social dysfunction.

So, how do you determine what a "fair share" is in your preferred system?

Well, I'd go by metrics of social health. Happiness, health, level of crime, poverty level, imprisonment level etc etc. If reductions in taxation and social service provision lead to a worsening of those metrics, then I'd say a fair share isn't being paid. If those metrics were high and stable then I'd say a fair share IS being paid.

Why is Person A more responsible for laboring to achieve those standards than Person B is? Why must Person A give of his own labor and property TO PERSON B merely because you think it's "socially healthy" for him to do so? Doesn't Person B have a moral obligation to provide for his own upkeep and use of public resources?

The other point of disagreement is that Person A necessarily is "better at laboring" just because he is richer. They might be in some cases, but that isn't a given.

Pettifoggery. If he's making more money than Person B, his value to the marketplace for labor is higher. Why should Person A have to sacrifice his labor to Person B merely because his labor is more valuable in the marketplace than Person B's? That's like saying that because Apple makes more money selling computers than IBM does, Apple must be required to fork over part of its profits to IBM.
On what moral theory or basis would Person A owe Person B the fruits of his labor?

Well, usually labour is paid out fairly equitably I guess. Although, when you look at CEO's and their ridiculous pay, that clearly seems inequitable to me.

...because someone doesn't want to pay ME that much...

Evidently, the CEO's you refer to are worth what they get paid, otherwise the shareholders would insist that they be paid less. What business is it of yours, or anyone else's including government's, what a group of shareholders agree to pay to their CEO?

And it's no surprise that this happens, as I don't think the free-market is a rational judge of anything. The free-market is based on flawed premises, and as such the results it produces are suboptimal.

"Suboptimal" for whom? The dependent class? Who gets to decide what is "suboptimal" and why should they get to do so?

Additional problems start happening when you get into investment of capital. That's not labour. It might be valuable "work" of sorts. But you should be clearer if that's what you mean.

Only a Marxist cares if investment of capital is "labour." The only thing that's important is that investment of capital is WEALTH GENERATION for anyone involved. Without that capital investment, commerce grinds to a halt, as it has in this recession precisely because capital investors have been backing out of the markets and sitting on their capital waiting for tax and regulation policy to stabilize.

What is your rational argument that supports this claim? Why is the better, more efficient, more effective laborer who creates more wealth per unit of work obliged to pay a larger share of the costs of government than Person B, who is less industrious and less valuable as a worker?

I don't accept your premises.

As usual you're evading the issue, as you always do because you CANNOT provide a rational moral analysis of why Person A must be compelled to labor on behalf of Person B.

I reject your premises because, as CES pointed out, capitalism ISN'T a meritocracy. Only loons like you on the fringe think it is.

Evasion and pettifoggery.

And that's why Marxists like you always evade the essential moral argument of Marxist collectivism.

I'm a capitalist, Seth. How the fuck can I be a Marxist?

You walk like a Marxist, you quack like a Marxist. You're a Marxist.

You assume a priori that "fairness" (however Marxism defines that rather loose and mutable term on any given day as applied to any given person) automatically answers all questions about enslaving one person to the service of another. It doesn't. You have NEVER, EVER been able to construct any sort of rational moral argument for the basic premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Ever.

That's because I am not a Marxist.

...I just play one on the Interwebz...

I doubt you ever will because you know full well there IS NO moral argument to be made in support of Marxist collectivist slavery of the "upper classes," much less the common Marxist practice of simply exterminating the "upper classes" (read: "anyone who has more than me") and expropriating what was once theirs. Stalin and Mao did rather a lot of that, and you're in the same class as they are because you have no moral foundation for your philosophy other than avarice, greed, jealousy and envy of those who are better off than you are.

I AM Stalin!

If you were, you'd be dead, which might be a good thing.

[Beatsong]

Pettifoggery.....

You know it's all downhill from here boys.

[Beatsong]

Well, since I pay a lot of taxes, I care. If some asshole is physically and mentally able to get a job and can get a job, then he should get that job rather than be paid State money. I don't really care if he chooses not to get the job, but if he does affirmatively decide not to take the job, preferring to stay home and watch t.v. on the taxpayer dime, then the dole should be cut off.

Thats a moral argument its just not a pragmatic one, I am quite prepared to pay anyone a very basic amount money for life even if they never even try to get a days work.
Do I resent it, yes of course but the alternative isnt we cut of their dole and they suddenly get a job , its they starve or come around and mug me.

It's a sad fact of life in most Western countries millions of people are just surplus to requirement as a civilization we need to accept this. Maybe in the past they would have travelled to new lands voluntary or just deported but thats not an option anymore

It's not a moral argument, as I don't assess right and wrongness of anyone's behavior. For all I care, he can stay home and wank all day. It's not my business. It is my business, as a taxpayer, that he gets some of the money I and others who pay taxes have earned and been forced to shell out for him. That's not moral. That's just the desire not to foot the bill for someone else's choices.

So all you're saying is that it's a situation that you don't personally like, or feel is to your own personal advantage?

Fair enough. Not sure what that's supposed to mean to anyone else though.

[Seth]

Pettifoggery.....

You know it's all downhill from here boys.

Only because that's all you nutbar liberals and socialists got. No game at all.

[MrJonno]

In the end of the day what is society aiming for.

Could argue its for justice, morality, wealth creation, fairness, natural rights but in reality its none of those its stability.

A society where those at the bottom are too pissed off just leaves to social collapse and revolution. Doesnt matter why they are unhappy its just not relevant

Libertarianism is a moronic ideology as ever other political movement at least claims to want to better the lot of the masses. Any ideology that doesnt will fail, in a democracy noone will vote for it, in a dictatorship in the end people will revolt

[Seth]

In the end of the day what is society aiming for.

Could argue its for justice, morality, wealth creation, fairness, natural rights but in reality its none of those its stability.

A society where those at the bottom are too pissed off just leaves to social collapse and revolution. Doesnt matter why they are unhappy its just not relevant

Libertarianism is a moronic ideology as ever other political movement at least claims to want to better the lot of the masses. Any ideology that doesnt will fail, in a democracy noone will vote for it, in a dictatorship in the end people will revolt

What you seem incapable of understanding is that Libertarianism is not about whether or not to make things better for everyone, it's how society goes about doing so. Libertarians fully support charity, altruism and rational self-interest, but they also respect the individual's right to make decisions for themselves and experience the consequences, good or bad, of that essential aspect of personal liberty. Libertarians expect people in need to politely ask for assistance if and when they cannot provide for themselves. Libertarians do not subscribe to the notion that "wealthy" members of society have a moral or legal obligation to take financial responsibility for "poor" members of society that can be imposed upon them against their will. But this does NOT mean they are not charitable, altruistic or interested in the fate of the less-well-off of society.

Libertarians, who have well-formed, sane, adult personalities that include important components like charity, altruism and rational self-interest understand that most people also have well-formed, sane, adult personalities so they are content to allow individuals to make their own choices about when, where and to what extent they wish to be altruistic and charitable to those less fortunate than they are.

This is entirely unlike insane, infantile, malformed Liberal and Progressive personalities (which includes socialists) that think only of themselves and how they can take from others to satisfy their own needs and who utterly fail to recognize, acknowledge or accept that each individual is responsible for their own choices, actions and the consequences of them, and that no one else may be compelled to suffer the negative consequences of the bad choices and/or actions of another.

[MrJonno]

This is entirely unlike insane, infantile, malformed Liberal and Progressive personalities (which includes socialists) that think only of themselves and how they can take from others to satisfy their own needs and who utterly fail to recognize, acknowledge or accept that each individual is responsible for their own choices, actions and the consequences of them, and that no one else may be compelled to suffer the negative consequences of the bad choices and/or actions of another.

On a planet of 7 billion the choices of others affects everyone which is why sometimes you need to restrict them, don't like that then time to find that desert island

[Beatsong]

This is entirely unlike insane, infantile, malformed Liberal and Progressive personalities (which includes socialists) that think only of themselves and how they can take from others to satisfy their own needs and who utterly fail to recognize, acknowledge or accept that each individual is responsible for their own choices, actions and the consequences of them, and that no one else may be compelled to suffer the negative consequences of the bad choices and/or actions of another.

Yes they may. People are compelled to suffer such consequences all the time. That's a simple fact that can be easily observed in human life all over the world.

You're just making stuff up now.

[Seth]

This is entirely unlike insane, infantile, malformed Liberal and Progressive personalities (which includes socialists) that think only of themselves and how they can take from others to satisfy their own needs and who utterly fail to recognize, acknowledge or accept that each individual is responsible for their own choices, actions and the consequences of them, and that no one else may be compelled to suffer the negative consequences of the bad choices and/or actions of another.

Yes they may. People are compelled to suffer such consequences all the time. That's a simple fact that can be easily observed in human life all over the world.

You're just making stuff up now.

Actually, I got it from a highly-qualified forensic psychiatrist who analyzed the liberal mind and made the diagnosis.

[Seth]

This is entirely unlike insane, infantile, malformed Liberal and Progressive personalities (which includes socialists) that think only of themselves and how they can take from others to satisfy their own needs and who utterly fail to recognize, acknowledge or accept that each individual is responsible for their own choices, actions and the consequences of them, and that no one else may be compelled to suffer the negative consequences of the bad choices and/or actions of another.

On a planet of 7 billion the choices of others affects everyone which is why sometimes you need to restrict them, don't like that then time to find that desert island

You still don't get it. My exercise of my rights may be regulated to prevent me from initiating force or fraud on another, but government may not visit upon me the consequences of someone else's bad behavior.

If you drive drunk and kill someone, society cannot legitimately seize MY car on the theory that if I don't have a car I can't drive drunk.

[pErvinalia]

This is entirely unlike insane, infantile, malformed Liberal and Progressive personalities (which includes socialists) that think only of themselves and how they can take from others to satisfy their own needs and who utterly fail to recognize, acknowledge or accept that each individual is responsible for their own choices, actions and the consequences of them, and that no one else may be compelled to suffer the negative consequences of the bad choices and/or actions of another.

Yes they may. People are compelled to suffer such consequences all the time. That's a simple fact that can be easily observed in human life all over the world.

You're just making stuff up now.

Actually, I got it from a highly-qualified forensic psychiatrist who analyzed the liberal mind and made the diagnosis.

God, not that shit again. Libertarianism is a human-psychology-denying ideology.

There is no such thing as a "rational actor". Psychology has debunked this nonsense for about 50 years.

[pErvinalia]

This is entirely unlike insane, infantile, malformed Liberal and Progressive personalities (which includes socialists) that think only of themselves and how they can take from others to satisfy their own needs and who utterly fail to recognize, acknowledge or accept that each individual is responsible for their own choices, actions and the consequences of them, and that no one else may be compelled to suffer the negative consequences of the bad choices and/or actions of another.

On a planet of 7 billion the choices of others affects everyone which is why sometimes you need to restrict them, don't like that then time to find that desert island

You still don't get it. My exercise of my rights may be regulated to prevent me from initiating force or fraud on another, but government may not visit upon me the consequences of someone else's bad behavior.

If you drive drunk and kill someone, society cannot legitimately seize MY car on the theory that if I don't have a car I can't drive drunk.

It all comes down to this silly concept of "natural rights". You believe they exist, we don't. Without them, your whole ideology comes crashing to the ground.

[Seth]

This is entirely unlike insane, infantile, malformed Liberal and Progressive personalities (which includes socialists) that think only of themselves and how they can take from others to satisfy their own needs and who utterly fail to recognize, acknowledge or accept that each individual is responsible for their own choices, actions and the consequences of them, and that no one else may be compelled to suffer the negative consequences of the bad choices and/or actions of another.

Yes they may. People are compelled to suffer such consequences all the time. That's a simple fact that can be easily observed in human life all over the world.

You're just making stuff up now.

Actually, I got it from a highly-qualified forensic psychiatrist who analyzed the liberal mind and made the diagnosis.

God, not that shit again. Libertarianism is a human-psychology-denying ideology.

Just because you don't like the diagnosis of Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., a board-certified psychiatrist doesn't mean his diagnosis is wrong.

[Seth]

This is entirely unlike insane, infantile, malformed Liberal and Progressive personalities (which includes socialists) that think only of themselves and how they can take from others to satisfy their own needs and who utterly fail to recognize, acknowledge or accept that each individual is responsible for their own choices, actions and the consequences of them, and that no one else may be compelled to suffer the negative consequences of the bad choices and/or actions of another.

On a planet of 7 billion the choices of others affects everyone which is why sometimes you need to restrict them, don't like that then time to find that desert island

You still don't get it. My exercise of my rights may be regulated to prevent me from initiating force or fraud on another, but government may not visit upon me the consequences of someone else's bad behavior.

If you drive drunk and kill someone, society cannot legitimately seize MY car on the theory that if I don't have a car I can't drive drunk.

It all comes down to this silly concept of "natural rights". You believe they exist, we don't. Without them, your whole ideology comes crashing to the ground.

Problem is you have no philosophical or well-reasoned foundation for your belief that rights are granted by government, you just make that shit up.