The Problem with Libertarians...

[Ted Striker]

that is a fact, you did make that claim.

That is an outright LIE and complete BS, so let's add liar to your list. You just did not understand what I said. It was MORE than clear what I said in that thread. YOU just brought up a 2 year old argument out of nowhere and I think that's pretty pathetic guy.

Get over it and get a life man, seriously.

You don't even understand the meaning of ad hominem.

The reason that you are a hypocrite is because I posted in this thread about libertarians. YOU entered the thread and then SPECIFICALLY said something about *ME* and your tired old wedlock crap that had NOTHING to do with the topic. THAT was the FIRST use of an ad hominem so quit trying to weasel out of it you hypocrite.

But it's the same old tired story with you. You will cut down someone personally and then when they retaliate you start using all your tired old arguments. You might as well just start copying and pasting because it gets rathar old.

Nobody agrees with your fairy tale arguments so if it makes you feel better to think you can hit the Reply key more than I can well then by all means go for your shallow victory.

This is so predictable dude. The second I saw this thread, I thought to myself, "great there is going to inevitably be an argument from berzerker about ad hominems."

Pathetic.

[Ted Striker]

Re: Re: Dustbowl

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Why Ted, that's a piktcher of a man and his two lil' boys playing together in the sweet, sweet warm sunshine of liberdy. No, they hain't hardly starvin' at all. If they was a starvin' they wouldn't hardly be runnin'. They'd be more likely lyin' down real dead like. That's what I think. Do you? Think?

I tell yu wut though. Hare's sume rahl Mericans livin free withuh meaht owne thar bones!

[Ramo]

The fact a poor person may use government force to take what belongs to others is not a problem for libertarianism, it's a problem for the system that allows legalised theft. If you invented a machine that makes our lives better and are rewarded for your effort, why is that a problem?

How are you going to create this magical system that the rich or poor will neither co-opt for their own interests, nor rise in rebellion against? History isn't in your favor...

Define socialism. If it's related to the state having control over the means of production, then libertarianism and socialism are contradictory.

There are many definitions of socialism. The one I use is the worker control of the means of production.

Those libertarian rules prohibit the use of force in the marketplace. I suspect you guys are confusing "force" with voluntary association.

Nope, I was saying that these libertarian rules would be unenforcable. Law is based on power, not the writings of Ayn Rand.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted Striker -

Where's your proof? And we are talking about famines caused by a free market where many starved to death, not government induced famines.



The dustbowl began after FDR was elected and the Depression was not fixed by FDR nor did it reach it's fullest impact until after he was in office.

The dust bowl began in 1931. FDR took office in 1933. The great depression certainly began before Roosevelt took office. The fullest impact of the depression may have been reached after he entered office, but who could expect the effects of any program to take effect immediately? By the time FDR arrived in office an estimated 500,000 people had died from starvation. This includes not only farmers of the south plains states, but also the southern farmers, midwestern farmers and urban workers across the nation.

How many people starved to death?

About 50,00 in the case of the western famine of 1888.

First, your claim that the potato famine was caused or occured in a lasseiz faire system is false and you even provided evidence for that. It was a result of British stupidity or malice, the mercantile system, and the feudal system before it. Why do you think those people had "landlords" in the first place? Not because those landlords bought up land in the marketplace, but because they were handed the land from prior corrupt systems. We are talking about US history, so don't try to include every famine the world has seen, and don't give me examples of government created famines. This debate is about the marketplace and if it can prevent mass starvations.

Where did I claim that the laissez-faire system caused the famine? The laissez-faire system failed to come to the aid of the starving people, regardless of how the landlords got the land. The potato famine struck the rest of Europe as well, but other European governments, not being so ideologically married to the laissez-faire philosophy, intervened to save their people. The British government so thoroughly believed in non-interference that it even activelty thwarted the efforts of non-Britons to render humanitarian aid. That, I believe, is libertarianism in its most extreme form.

Where was it said previously in this thread that we were discussing only US history? The subject is libertarianism, and 19th century British laissez-faire is an example of libertarianism. They believed much the same as you do. The fact that they inherited a state previously molded by monarchic and merchantile ideologies is inconsequential if the subject of discussion is restricted to the effects of laissez faire capitalim during this time period.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If parents force their children into child labor, that would be illegal. But if the family needs money to survive and the child wants to do ther part to help the family, I wouldn't tell them they can't.

Setting aside whether the child wants to help - coercion can be subtle, after all - this scenario points out a big problem with lazziez-faire. Companies are artifical entities that are permitted to exist by social consent. Thus, you cannot equate them with humans.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Would you make it illegal for children to help out on the family farm? If not, does that mean you support child labor? How about paper routes? How about child actors? Btw, child labor laws were not enacted because atruism, they were enacted because adults didn't want children competing for their jobs - and we all know who votes and who doesn't.

What reality do you live in Berz? Certainly not the same one with the rest of us. Have you seen the horrible conditions of Third World sweatshops? I can't comprehend comparing that with a kid working on his parents' farm.

[Berzerker]

Doc - Here you can read about the potato famine and the British intrusions into the marketplace that helped cause it.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=88

Ted -

That is an outright LIE and complete BS, so let's add liar to your list.

Blah blah blah. You said out of wedlock births increased/occur for all marital statuses.

You just did not understand what I said.

Well make up your "mind", am I lying or just ignorant?

It was MORE than clear what I said in that thread.

Yes, it was so clear you now feel compelled to change what you said.

YOU just brought up a 2 year old argument out of nowhere and I think that's pretty pathetic guy.

I was just providing proof of your towering intellect.

The reason that you are a hypocrite is because I posted in this thread about libertarians. YOU entered the thread and then SPECIFICALLY said something about *ME* and your tired old wedlock crap that had NOTHING to do with the topic.

I'm a libertarian, if you can enter this thread to say things about us, why can't I say something about you? And so what if your idiocy from the past is unrelated to the topic in this thread? That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

THAT was the FIRST use of an ad hominem so quit trying to weasel out of it you hypocrite.

You're still not explaining why a statement of fact about what you've said in the past is an ad hominem? I've been addressing your arguments, but you responded to mine with only a comment about my alleged drug induced paranoia as if that alone refuted my position - that is an ad hominem (look it up in the dictionary).

But it's the same old tired story with you. You will cut down someone personally and then when they retaliate you start using all your tired old arguments.

Lol, you cut yourself down when you made that idiotic statement about married people having out of wedlock babies.

You might as well just start copying and pasting because it gets rathar old.

Then runaway like you did the last time.

Nobody agrees with your fairy tale arguments so if it makes you feel better to think you can hit the Reply key more than I can well then by all means go for your shallow victory.

"Nobody"? Meaning you and Strangelove? LOL.

This is so predictable dude. The second I saw this thread, I thought to myself, "great there is going to inevitably be an argument from berzerker about ad hominems."

That would be a self-fulfilling "prophecy". You entered the thread and made an ad hominem only to then "predict" I would point out your ad hominem. Do you kick cats so you can prove your "prediction" they will run from you?

Pathetic.

"Out of wedlock births have increased for every marital status" - Ted Striker

ROTFLMAO!

[Ned]

Re: The Problem with Libertarians...

Originally posted by Albert Speer
they just don't give a damn...

What libertarians don't realize is that America today in 2003 is incapable of having a working libertarian society. There are far too many people who depend on the first and fifteenth... too many people who do not have parents for moral influence... too much general inethical behaviour occuring... too much of a liberal attitude of if it feels good, do it...

A libertarian society that forms in this environment will only result in an even worse cycle of poverty for millions of Americans. Of course, to libertarians, this is just 'tough luck'...


thanks

Agreed!

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

How are you going to create this magical system that the rich or poor will neither co-opt for their own interests, nor rise in rebellion against? History isn't in your favor...

Why is enforcing a law against stealing "magical"?

There are many definitions of socialism. The one I use is the worker control of the means of production.

We've had this debate before. How will the workers own the means of production if I as a landowner and producer don't want to sell my land off to the workers and the people I employ want to work for me?

Nope, I was saying that these libertarian rules would be unenforcable. Law is based on power, not the writings of Ayn Rand.

I haven't read Ayn Rand. Why is a law against stealing unenforceable? Because the poor demand that their stealing be legalised? Why is that any more moral than the rich legalising stealing for themselves?

Dr Strangelove -

The dust bowl began in 1931.

True, but it started out slowly only to reach it's fullest impact in 1935. The jump in dust storms from 1933 to 1934 was massive.

The great depression certainly began before Roosevelt took office. The fullest impact of the depression may have been reached after he entered office, but who could expect the effects of any program to take effect immediately?

How was Hoover supposed to make it rain and stop farmers from engaging in less than wise farming practices? You just said what I said with regards to the Depression, but he still didn't fix the problem. WWII and rain ended the drought and the Depression.

By the time FDR arrived in office an estimated 500,000 people had died from starvation.

Do you have a link?

About 50,00 in the case of the western famine of 1888.

Link?

Where did I claim that the laissez-faire system caused the famine?

Here is what you said:

Then there was the Potato famine in Ireland. In a classic example of laissez-faire gone beserk the royal government actually refused to allow American aid societies to send food to Ireland

So I pointed out that the famine did not occur in a laissez faire system.

The laissez-faire system failed to come to the aid of the starving people, regardless of how the landlords got the land.

But you cited evidence yourself that the famine did not occur in a laissez faire system.

The potato famine struck the rest of Europe as well, but other European governments, not being so ideologically married to the laissez-faire philosophy, intervened to save their people.

Why do you keep claiming the famine occured in a laissez faire system when you provided evidence to the contrary?

The British government so thoroughly believed in non-interference that it even activelty thwarted the efforts of non-Britons to render humanitarian aid. That, I believe, is libertarianism in its most extreme form.

Geez, since when does laissez faire or libertarianism require abolishing charity?

Where was it said previously in this thread that we were discussing only US history?

Speer lives here and was claiming libertarianism won't work because of cultural factors in the US.

The subject is libertarianism, and 19th century British laissez-faire is an example of libertarianism.

If you want to ignore who started the thread and the gist of their argument. But I provided a link showing why the Brits were not practicing laissez faire. The very fact you provided evidence that the Brits dis-allowed charity when libertarianism depends on charity refutes your claim.

They believed much the same as you do.

Hardly. I would not prohibit the charitable giving of food. Where do you get this stuff?

The fact that they inherited a state previously molded by monarchic and merchantile ideologies is inconsequential if the subject of discussion is restricted to the effects of laissez faire capitalim during this time period.

They weren't practicing laissez faire and the previous systems that led to the problems are not inconsequential. Would you argue slavery has nothing to do with how blacks think today?

UR -

Setting aside whether the child wants to help - coercion can be subtle, after all - this scenario points out a big problem with lazziez-faire.

Not being able to pay the bills can be coercive too. Most children would want to help the family, so why is it wrong to let the child help? Many family farms have depended on child labor, is that to be condemned?

Companies are artifical entities that are permitted to exist by social consent. Thus, you cannot equate them with humans.

Humans operate them. I don't need your consent to produce a product others want to buy, nor do other people need your consent to work for me if they so choose. I'll agree with you to an extent, I'm opposed to the policy we've had of treating corporations as if they are above people. If I commit a crime and face punishment, then the corporation (people owning/running it) that does the same thing should be treated the same.

What reality do you live in Berz? Certainly not the same one with the rest of us.

There's more than one?

Have you seen the horrible conditions of Third World sweatshops?

Aren't those children being forced to work? And what will you do for them if those jobs are shut down for their own good? Are you going over there to give them jobs? Were you that concerned when you bought a computer put together in Malaysia? Yes, sweatshops are not very desirable, but sweatshops don't exist in free market systems, they exist in 3rd world countries where governments practice anything but the free market. Those governments are the successor states to colonialism where a ruling elite have pillaged the country just like in feudal systems. Blaming freedom for the centuries of anti-freedom government policies is illogical.

I can't comprehend comparing that with a kid working on his parents' farm.

So you don't oppose child labor? Where those "sweatshops" exist, you'll probably find cultural practices that effectively make children property before they are ever forced into the sweatshops. And I can tell you this, SE Asia and India do not practice laissez faire, they have extremely controlled economies with India being a nightmare to even start a business.

[Evil Knevil]

Hahahahahaha. Berk is right in that drugs should be legalised. Berk is wrong because human nature is not infinately malliable and will always fall back on principles of self-interest that cannot be compatible with Libertarianism. Also if people act irrationally what libertarian mechanism exists to compensate for damage?

I'm high on speed

[Evil Knevil]

Edited because I'm crass and drunk.

[Berzerker]

Sorry, but your tiny problems are not our concern.

[Evil Knevil]

lol. How can complete self-interest create a society -if of course we accept some sort of society as a 'goal'.

[monkspider]

You are being terribly rude in your arguements Berserker. I must therefore advise you to take a chill pill, my fellow Kansan.

As for the question of whether libertarianism is a viable economic or political philosophy. I must admit that I join the camp who finds it to be not only unrealistic, but indeed, immoral. It is an unrealistic picture of how society can realistically function, as decisively demonstarted by the arguements of the vast majority of this forum. But it is immoral because it inherently relies on greed to keep the system in line, as advocated by Ms. Rand herself. Greed, swallowing up the weak, the law of the jungle, etc, these are all basic proponents of any libertarian society. These are all also things that can be objectively seen as immoral, relative to a socialist society which is based on cooperation, sharing, brotherhood, and so on.
Much is made by libertarians about taxes equating theft, and thus, the noble libertarians are here to liberate us from this band of robber barons. The truth of the matter is the concept of taxation inherently equaling theft is no more than an articficial construct used by the libs and bourgeoise and various others throughout history to suit their own purposes. If a society as a whole willingly participated in a system of revenue collection which we'll refer to henceforth as taxation, it no longer becomes theft, but cooperation. Therefore, the libertarian arguement falls down in this respect. Taxation is no more theft than any other good or service. In this case, the service is "living in a society". In this aforementioned society, the people have democratically chosen to live in a system with taxation to pay for various beneficial social services, such as a police department, a fire department, help for the poor, etc. This is the will of the people as a whole, and thus a cooperative effort. If an individual chooses to not pay for electricity then he loses the ability to read in the dark, watch TV, and so forth. In other words, he loses the ability to use electricity. If he refuses to to pay for the ability to live in a nation-state, then he loses the ability to live in that nation-state.
I will spare this forum the theological arguments I have frequently made against libertarianism for now.

[Berzerker]

Define society and self-interest.

[Evil Knevil]

I will when I'm less crass... and not snorted some good old christmas gak.