My name is Lib, and I'm new here

[Stefu]

I call them Giant Squids because one debator asked me once what libertarianism would do if giant squids were to arise from the ocean floor and present original title to all the property in the United States.

Uhm, we have a poster called Giant Squid here, and he's famous for creting sock puppets for himself. This is not the best tactic to convince people you're not one of them.

[Ramo]

Maybe, but poverty is inevitable, especially in any reasonably industrialized economy.

Check out Barcelona before the gov't crushed the revolution.

I would submit that the lack of industry had a lot to do with wealth disparity hundreds of years ago...everyone was a farmers for Christ's sake!

Huh?

And besides, you wanna see poverty? Go to a communist nation like Stalinist Russia or Maoist China...

Can you say "non sequitur?"

they are pretty close in structure.

Not at all. a->b can be a completely different proof from b->a. As in this case.

But that's not what you're saying. You're taking a special case, not a generalization. And I don't think I agree with that special case.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Stefu


Uhm, we have a poster called Giant Squid here, and he's famous for creting sock puppets for himself. This is not the best tactic to convince people you're not one of them.

You are the man, Stefu!!

You've got your finger on the pulse and lingo of all the major boards!!

BTW, I invited one of the really good newbie Civ3 posters to the OT. Link will only work for him.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Capitalism leads to wealth disparities. Wealth disparities lead to authority in the private sector, as well as the public sector

Genetics leads to wealth disparities, and wealth disparities only lead to greater authority in the private sector if consumers want the wealthy producer's products and the state tries to suppress competition on behalf of the wealthy producer. And the greater authority in the public sector is not so much the result of wealthy producers, but because of people who want to steal without the risk - legally.

That's the ineherent problem with libertarian capitalism. Great wealth disparities lead to the abuse of state power. Libertarian capitalism is a logical contradiction

Or maybe you are confused about the meaning of capitalism. This "abuse of state power" is not capitalism, it's statism.
The marketplace requires only two things of the state - to enforce contracts and deter non-contracts. The fact some people using a capitalist system also seek to use government to violate the freedom of others to enter the marketplace doesn't mean capitalism led to the increased government.

It doesn't matter whether your "perfect" LibCap gov't doesn't have power. The state will grow with the wealth disparities. You're going against the current of history itself

It wasn't "wealth disparities" that led to an increasing US government, it was the US Civil War followed by the socialist movement. If you say it was poverty that led people to vote for a larger federal government, then you'll be admitting it was not wealthy people who were responsible for the larger government, but the envy of those who had less. And as Jefferson said, it is natural for government to grow and for liberty to give way - that is the current of history. You're welcome to show us one socialist system where government "withered away".

Seriously, you look at societies with small wealth disparities - hunter-gatherer communities or early North US (besides the really big cities), for example, and you see very weak governments.

As Floyd pointed out, the reason for the small government was so many people were farming. Hard to devote much effort to "government" when %90 of the population are self-sufficient farmers. And this is true even more for hunter-gatherer societies where virtually everyone is scrounging for food instead of playing the role of politician.

There's an amazing coorelation between wealth disparities and state power throughout history

Was Red China and Stalinist Russia "plagued" by extremely wealthy people? Those two countries should have ended up with minimal governments instead of the monstrosities of communism. Just how will you achieve wealth parity without an enormous government to do the stealing/killing (I'm assuming not everyone will hand over their property)?

End poverty, and you destroy the state

Do you mean all those rich and poor people who increase the state to benefit themselves will stop trying to use the state to benefit themselves if they all have roughly the same amount of money?
Then why would the rich ever use the state to benefit themselves in the first place?

Connor - May I suggest a fascinating book on Jesus? "The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Barbara Thiering.
A tough read, but she cleared up alot of the confusion I had when reading the N.T.
You might want to re-think your departure from Christianity...

[Provost Harrison]

Well come the revolution, all libertarians should be hanged from lamp posts. And I am sure that Ramo takes great offence at being called a Libertarian

[Libertarian]

With respect to Giant Squids and sock puppets, interesting! There is also a user at Straight Dope called Giant Squid. In this thread, he opened with:

I got referred here from Apolyton (www.apolyton.net/forums) and I've been watching a little of what you say. My only question is: How many of you are being sarcastic? PLEASE say a large number...

I was the first to reply to him, writing:

Giant Squid! Have you come to reclaim your land?

There's also a reply to him from a Doper called Stefu.

-----

With respect to Giant Squids and absurd hypotheticals, the original thread is too old to resurrect with search (although by searching "giant squid", you can find numerous later references), but it was remarkable. The fellow who first raised the scenario (arguing about whether man was the lone sentient creature capable of a cognitive understanding of property) suddenly appeared one morning and reported that he'd changed his mind. In the most stunning post I'd ever seen, he wrote something along these lines:

Lib, I thought over the noncoercion ethic this weekend, and as an animal lover who believes that animals should be left alone and free from coercion, I can't in good conscience want anything less for human animals. I therefore won't argue anymore against your inoffensive libertarian ethic.

I was submarined by this, as we were right in the midst of a very fiery debate, when suddenly, there was that post. As it happens, the fellow (pldennison) became quite a model libertarian and one of our most effective debators.

Wow.

-----

With respect to what libertarianism is, it is a political philosophy whose ethic is "noncoercion". Coercion is defined as the initiation of force or fraud — key word: initiation. Libertarianism is simply the opposition to coercion. If you oppose coercion, you are libertarian; otherwise, you're not. Simply put, it's never okay to start a fight out of the blue over nothing, but it's damn sure your right to defend yourself and your property using whatever force is necessary.

Strict libertarianism (to which I adhere) defines rights as an attribute of property. Thus, rights are meaningless outside the context of property, and accrue to the property's owner. One example: it is not any "right of free speech" that we exercise here on this message board; rather, it is a privilege extended to us by the site owners, who, libertarianly speaking, are the rights bearing entities with respect to this MB. It's meaningless to refer to rights when there is no property to tie with it.

An epistemology of property based rights clears up all the obfuscation that surrounds so-called "public property". When ownership is unclear, there are in reality no rights. Who can build a house there? If you say nobody, then I submit that nobody is the owner. Who can stand on the land? If you say everybody, then I submit that the electromagnetic nature of the universe precludes two people from occupying the same space at the same time. If you both want to stand on the same spot, then there's gonna be a fight.

In reality, all property is owned by someone. "Public property" is actually owned by governors.

-----

With respect to Jesus, He was, in my opinion, the consumate Libertarian — never initiating force or fraud against anyone, but defending His property (His temple) forcefully when it was beseiged by vagrants who used it to make money for themselves. He was also the consumate Objectivist, recognizing Spirit as the objective reality, and appealing to our self-interest to believe in Him. After all, if we are to be completely selfless as Christians, then by what ethic are we to seek out our own salvation?

-----

With respect to objectivism and libertarianism, whether they clash depends on your interpretation of each. In my opinion, the ethic of noncoercion and the ethic of self-interest define a perfect balance of how man ought to interact with man.

-----

With respect to whether I was run out of town (or however the poster put it) from Straight Dope, the answer is no. In fact, last night I received an e-mail from my favorite mod asking me where I've been lately, and informing me that the object that calls itself "Lolo" was banned. Long story short, Lolo's banning ensures that Great Debates will return to its prior glory.

I did take a voluntary sabbatical from SD a couple of months ago (who hasn't?). This was predicated on the wild emotional clashes that arose from the Fred Phelps project. But after resting up a bit, I returned. With the blessings of TubaDiva, of course.

As to Pit threads, having a Pit thread about you in some cases is a badge of honor. Certainly, no mod is a mod worthy of the title who has never seen a Pit thread directed at him/her. I've also started my fair share of them. But mine usually aren't rants. Mine are parodies of the person I'm targetting.

Most people like them. The one I did on Lolo was featured in Threadspotting, as a matter of fact.

-----

Sorry for the long rambling post. And thanks for the many welcomes.

[Libertarian]

Gosh, I nearly forgot! With respect to materialism, at SD, I recently opened a thread called The Metaphysics of Materialism. My assessment of the philosophy, and how it has wended its way to its present state from the early writings of Hobbes was summed up by this:

I'm still stuck trying to wrap my brain around an existence that is ontologically meaningless yet includes observers whose observations are meaningful — but not material! The brain itself is material, but it produces ghosts (concepts) that aren't. Material reality is manifest subjectively. And yet, objectively, too. These observers are part of the existence, one presumes, and yet they are like the wind, neither here nor there, incorporeal and yet material. Predications without agency. It is all mystical beyond anything I've ever seen in theology.

(The newbie in that thread, "ambushed", inspired another of my parody Pit threads. That one was the most fun for me)

[Ari Rahikkala]

Hmm... damnit. Up to now, you have shown about 300% better better discussion skills than the average of Apolyton OT...

Giant Squid... Yes, I know him (we're both Hyperboreans). I just wonder why he gets mentioned every time somebody even thinks philosophically...

[Libertarian]

Hmm... damnit. Up to now, you have shown about 300% better better discussion skills than the average of Apolyton OT...

Oh, well. I enjoyed the honeymoon.

[...lighting cigarette...]

Was it good for you?

[Ari Rahikkala]

Oh yes. It's a few years since I last wanted to wrap my brains around any post...

[connorkimbro]

Didn't ask. Don't tell...

Oh geez, i didn't mean THAT, GP! lol. .

[Saras]

ck, I told you there is no faggier service than the airforce

[Ramo]

Genetics leads to wealth disparities, and wealth disparities only lead to greater authority in the private sector if consumers want the wealthy producer's products and the state tries to suppress competition on behalf of the wealthy producer.

I don't know what you're getting at...

And the greater authority in the public sector is not so much the result of wealthy producers, but because of people who want to steal without the risk - legally.

Huh? Wealthy producers do use state power to steal without risk - legally (trade barriers, corporate welfare, etc.).

Or maybe you are confused about the meaning of capitalism. This "abuse of state power" is not capitalism, it's statism.

I'm not "confused about the meaning" of anything. Please re-read what I wrote.

The fact some people using a capitalist system also seek to use government to violate the freedom of others to enter the marketplace doesn't mean capitalism led to the increased government.

Wealth disparities lead to a more powerful powerful state; not capitalism itself.

It wasn't "wealth disparities" that led to an increasing US government, it was the US Civil War followed by the socialist movement.

It was wealth disparities that lead to increase of government power in the US. We saw tariffs, handouts to big business and speculators, institutionalization of monpolies and other institutions that undermine competition, strike breaking, and uncountable other kinds of government supported theft in favor of the rich before the so-called "socialist movement."

If you say it was poverty that led people to vote for a larger federal government, then you'll be admitting it was not wealthy people who were responsible for the larger government, but the envy of those who had less.

1. I've already explicitly said that in this thread (see my comments about the New Deal and the Great Society).
2. I need not "admit" any such thing. Government supported theft isn't only one way. And before the modern era, there were few instances of the poor abusing state power.

You're welcome to show us one socialist system where government "withered away".

Parts of early US, for instance, made a transition between tyranny to liberty.

As Floyd pointed out, the reason for the small government was so many people were farming.

Counter examples exist everywhere. Feudal systems, for instance, have large amounts of farmers, yet have huge wealth disparities. On the other hand, industrialized Barcelona had essentially no government before the communists crushed the revolution.

Nonetheless, I was merely pointing out the coorelation between an egalitarian economy and lack of government, which is very strong throughout history.

Was Red China and Stalinist Russia "plagued" by extremely wealthy people?

Absolutely - the state bureaucrats. A situation where the state owns everything is about as far from a socialist system that you can get.

Just how will you achieve wealth parity without an enormous government to do the stealing/killing (I'm assuming not everyone will hand over their property)?

Although I do support land reform in certain semi-feudal places in the third-world, I advocate voluntary, non-coercive actions.

Do you mean all those rich and poor people who increase the state to benefit themselves will stop trying to use the state to benefit themselves if they all have roughly the same amount of money?

Yep.

Then why would the rich ever use the state to benefit themselves in the first place?

Huh? What are you trying to say?

[Imran Siddiqui]

End poverty, and you destroy the state.

Now, now. You are being as utopian as Marxists or Libertarians arguing for a totally minimalistic state.

HOW do you end poverty? The way to do so, is through the state mechanism. You can't end the state and THEN end poverty. If you end the state, the rich shall simply hire themselves armies and force people to do their bidding through yellow-dog contracts and the sort (yes, a Libertarian arguing the state is needed ). The only way to end poverty is to have the state raise everyone up above the 'so-called' poverty line. To do this, you have to take from the rich and give to the poor. The state is needed to do this.

Now what happens when no one is poor? Do the people vote for the government to go away? ARE YOU KIDDING? These newly raised from the poverty trap are now dependant on the government and will never allow for the government to die. Of course, they might take on new projects such as inequality (after all poverty and inequality are vastly different measures), or have a strong state in order to protect people from going under that said poverty line.

The idea that those raised from the depths of poverty (and saw inequality is vanquished as well) will agree to disband the government, is foolishness. After all, without the government, abuses of the market can again take place. People will gain more than others and use that relative power in order to aggrandize more power until the inequality returns in greater quantities than before.

The simple answer is that government IS needed to reduce poverty and inequality in ANY system. The degree is to be debated, but simply making bald assertions about the state withering away after everyone is equal in wealth is a dream land state.

[Ramo]

HOW do you end poverty? The way to do so, is through the state mechanism.

Nope (except in certain third-world situations). That's where the socialism comes in. Workers need to buy up their businesses.

If you end the state

I don't mean to totally dissolve the state; there are certain services that need to be public. Adding qualifiers unnecessarily complicate the sentence, so I prefer not adding them when the meanings are relatively obvious.

The degree is to be debated, but simply making bald assertions about the state withering away after everyone is equal in wealth is a dream land state.

But it's not. The state was ejected out of Catalonia, for instance.