A socialist alternative to a vcommand economy

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because people can coerce. Money is power, and in a libertarian society, those with the money will be tyrants with no governmental check.

Money is the power to give stuff the people. Coercion is the power to take stuff.

[chequita guevara]

Money is the power to hire thugs to harm or kill others.

Day two of the libertarian society will be the establishment of the Mafias as the new governments. Larger businesses will adapt to the new mafia order by either becoming mafias themselves or by surrendering to them.

[Kuciwalker]

Money is the power to hire thugs to harm or kill others.

Not legally. You're complaining about the system by saying that people could try to usurp it...

[chequita guevara]

It doesn't matter if it's not legal if there's no effective legal order to oppose it.

[Kuciwalker]

What's that have to do with capitalism, or even liberatarianism? There are police under liberatarianism.

[chequita guevara]

Who pays the police in libertarianism?

[Kuciwalker]

Society. Libertarianism doesn't necessarily exclude taxes at all - in fact, those rights, which are something an individual can demand of society, require such measures as are necessary to fulfill society's obligation to defend that right.

[Kuciwalker]

dp

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Society. Libertarianism doesn't necessarily exclude taxes at all - in fact, those rights, which are something an individual can demand of society, require such measures as are necessary to fulfill society's obligation to defend that right.

Soft libertarianism isn't libertarianism just like social democracy isn't socialism, Libertarianism requires a non-coercive state, which is to say, no state at all (after all, states are organizations which have legitimate coercive power). The minute society can compel people to pay taxes, it ceases to be a libertarian society.

[Kuciwalker]

That's anarchism. Anyway, if you're using that definition, chalk me up as a "soft" libertarian then.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's anarchism.

Libertarianism is capitalist anarchism.

[Kuciwalker]

If you say so...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Yes. Happiness is not necessarily "smiley" happiness, but your "happiness" with various outcomes. Whichever outcome you are "happiest" with, you choose.

In other words, "whatever is most choiceworthy, you choose". Well there's a tautology for the ages.

I hope I don't have to point out to you that such a tautology is pretty useless.

Real people aren't always rational agents, thus they don't always behave in such a manner as to maximize (or attempt to maximize) their utility function.

In other words, real people don't behave in the psychopathic way you and "AI researchers" think they should behave.

And AI theory, game theory, rational agents and the like are all philosophy. They're just the kind of philosophy that has actual useful applications, unlike most of the stuff you probably teach

I fail to see how any theory which fails to attribute motivations to people that they actually have can be a good one. And you'll find that evolutionary psychology says different. You'll also find that people who make the former assertions do so with pretty heavy caveats.

How can you have been taken in so badly by this crude version of hedonism? Jesus Christ, people had knock down arguments against this 2500 years ago.

[chequita guevara]

The definition of self-interestedness used by the libertarians is so broad as to be meaningless. If ever single action is self-interested, then self-interested merely means an action humans take. It has nothing to do with whether or not the action taken actually aids the actor in some way. It tells us nothing about human beings, and thus is pointless to bring up in a discussion about which social systems would suit humans best.

[Kuciwalker]

The definition of self-interestedness used by the libertarians is so broad as to be meaningless. If ever single action is self-interested, then self-interested merely means an action humans take.

Even broader. Rather, every rational agent.

It tells us nothing about human beings, and thus is pointless to bring up in a discussion about which social systems would suit humans best.

No, because it tells us people are rational agents (not a bunch of insane nuts). Combined with the basic knowledge that few or none derive happiness from having LESS money, or less stuff money can buy (giving to charity is part of this), we understand that the general tendency of humans is to maximize their wealth (and then spend it on stuff).