The Problem with Libertarians...

[MRT144]

so does bezerker really ever make an arguement or does he just ask you to prove things and define things with no real interest in what you come up with...

[Agathon]

Let Berzerker come up with responses to these or forever hold his piece (sic.)


Part 2

The prisoner’s dilemma.

Is a very famous example that goes to show that in many cases selfish behaviour leads to a worse overall result for everyone. It is particularly problematic for those who believe that individuals should be free to pursue self interested goals no matter what.

Here’s an example of a PD situation.

Assuming my motivation is to make things better for me should I steal books from the Library if I can almost certainly get away with it?

Answer: Yes. If I steal books from the library it means I have my favourite books at home and I still have access to all the rest in the library. I am better off if I steal.

But what if everyone else steals, then there will be no books left in the library and I will be worse off. Should I steal books then?

Answer: Yes. I don’t know what everyone else is going to do, so in order to maximise my own benefit whatever they do I must steal. My options show me why.

Option A: I do not steal; the others do not steal.

Option B: I steal; the others do not steal.

Option C: I do not steal; the others steal.

Option D: I steal; the others also steal.

For any individual Option B is the best result whilst option C is the worst. Also for me B is better than A and D is better than C. So, given that I don’t know what the others will do, stealing is the best option. But everyone else will make the same calculation and they will steal thus everyone will end up worse off. What makes this a problem is that even if I know this, it is still rational for me to steal because D is better than C and B is better than A.

Let’s apply this to a favourite Libertarian idea – private police forces. In suburb X the residents are suffering from a crime wave. The idea of a private police force is mooted. As per Libertarian theory contributions are entirely voluntary. Should I contribute?

Answer: No. Again there are four options.

A: I contribute; the others contribute.

B: I don’t contribute; the others contribute.

C: I contribute; the others don’t.

D: No one contributes.

B is best for me for a simple reason – regular police patrols in a suburb tend to discourage criminals from entering that suburb meaning that some benefit will accrue to me if I live in that suburb even if I don’t pay. In this case I will be a “free rider” but there is nothing anyone can do about it because payment is voluntary. But by the logic of the prisoner’s dilemma everyone ends up worse off. The obvious solution is for the local council to coerce everyone into paying for the cops, everyone will be better off this way and there will be no free riders – but no Libertarian can countenance such a solution.

Now apply the prisoner’s dilemma to other issues like education, pollution, pest control, immunisation, etc. and you will see that failure to coerce entails a prisoner’s dilemma which entails a worse overall outcome for everyone. It’s that simple – Libertarianism cannot ever work.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

If these "nefarious" means involve force with or without government help, they would be illegal in a libertarian system. If these "nefarious" means include providing a product at a lower cost, so what?

If there's no state, than legality and illegality are meaninginless concepts. If it's a minimalist state, any single corporation could probably muster the resources to ignore it. Groups of corporations, i.e., trusts and cartels could simply form a state of their own. Any other kind of state they can simply buy. In fact, that's what we have now, with the eception that the state is independent enough from its creators that it can enforce capitalism's best interests against the will of the capitalists themselves.

The great irony is that libertarians play the same social role as fascists, they are a tool of powerful corporations to crush the lower classes, but will find themselves powerless to move against the excesses of the corporations. Should they try, they will be swept aside, just like the Stormtroopers were.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Why don't you answer my question? How many people died of starvation?

I answered this about 10 posts ago. Basically to sum it up, the logic is flawed, and one-dimensional. It says that since people don't die and there aren't numbers showing huge death counts, everything must have been okay.

Here's a modern day example:

Brazil has been struggling with economic problems. Most of the country eats but there are a large number of people who are underfed. (I'm not picking on Brazil because even in the US we have people who are malnurished). The new President came in and recognized this problem and has promised his population 3 square meals a day. Now why would he do this? Political motivations? Sure, that plays into it. But I don't think it's a primary motivator. Does Brazil have some large death count numbers? No, it's because people are underfed and that limits their development.

Of course, no doubt you will cite government mismanagement for Brazil's woes. But that ignores a very basic idea, and that is, every single system ever tried on this planet has had a time when people have gone hungry. So despite HOW things got the way they were, the point is that you have to DEAL with bad times when they happen.

On the same token, show me numbers that show how efficienct charities have been in feeding the desparate and poor en masse.

The food stamps program was a REACTIVE program instituted to fill a need. It was not a proactive program simply rooted in political motivations.

The Mass Migrations were well documented. And again, I can subsist on garbage if I need to, to make the 2 day trip to from Arkansas or Oklahoma, to California. But it's not in the best interests for a population to live on scraps, is it? How do all the refugees from the civil wars in Africa get out of the country if they are starving to death? They still manage to both flee the country and starve to death at the same.

By the way, next time you're in the headquarters of the evil robber barrons, Washington DC, check out the FDR memorial, there's a nice sculpture there of some desparate men who are waiting in line at the food bank.

Why don't you provide a link?

You can go to Google.com and search for Arkansas Food Riot or England Food Riot.

We weren't under a laissez faire system. Geez, you people keep citing government induced calamities and blame the marketplace. That's no different than blaming drugs for all the violence caused by drug prohibition.

What kind of system was the farm system then? Also tell me how government intrusion into the farm system caused the Dust Bowl. I have yet to read anything regarding government intervention into the system. The intrusion you are talking about is regarding import/export where tarriffs were set up and helped to exaggerate a global wealth imbalance. That's a completely separate issue from the Dust Bowl.

Yet at the same time, farmers were simply responding with greed to this glorious free market system where the farms became overfarmed and the land mismanaged to the point that it could not withstand the natrual forces of nature.

Yeah, like we have a smarter system of forest conservation that leads to bigger fires. Let's hope we don't see another decade long drought to test your claim.

I haven't seen a massive destruction of an entire farm region since then, have you? We've had several destructive droughts which could have been catastrophic but the land has been recovered far more efficiently than it would have had protections not been in place.

Those states that outlawed slavery up until the Civil War era.

Link?

I believe Nordic Iceland had a largely libertarian system.

Link?

Many "primitive" societies commonly called "hunter-gatherer" would have qualified.

Link? Hunter-gatherer isn't even remotely close to a modern, civilized society.

We basicly went from these systems to monarchs which lasted right up until recent times.

No feudal systems? No dictatorships? No empires? No republics? Theocracies? Mercantile systems?

If we were living 250 years ago, would you say democracies were invalid because there weren't any we could point to?

Greek city-state democracies. Roman Republic.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

The first is that any reasonable application of its own principles will result in it violating them (in other words it cannot be applied coherently).

An unsupported assertion.

S: Which do you think is the worse overall situation: one in which there is but a single violation or the one in which there are fifty violations?

Both are wrong, "worse" is in the eye of the beholder.
Your premise is that if one act is immoral, another immoral act becomes justified. Now, can you cite an example of a smithy refusing to let people borrow his weapons to defend the village? If not, your hypothetical is meaningless. No smithy would have such a stockpile and a free people would be armed of their own accord.

Assuming my motivation is to make things better for me should I steal books from the Library if I can almost certainly get away with it?

Answer: Yes. If I steal books from the library it means I have my favourite books at home and I still have access to all the rest in the library. I am better off if I steal.

Stealing violates the libertarian principles of freedom and property rights. So obviously maximizing one's own position in life is not a libertarian principle when it involves the property of others.

Let’s apply this to a favourite Libertarian idea – private police forces.

Huh? Can you quote me advocating this? Not that I object to the fact that non-governmental police/security is increasing.

In suburb X the residents are suffering from a crime wave. The idea of a private police force is mooted. As per Libertarian theory contributions are entirely voluntary. Should I contribute?

If you want, if you don't all the people who do will be angry with you and treat you with dis-respect. Enjoy your life in that community... See how behavior can be effected without stealing?

MRT144 -

so does bezerker really ever make an arguement or does he just ask you to prove things and define things with no real interest in what you come up with...

It is rare to find a person who can type but not read.

chegitz -

If there's no state, than legality and illegality are meaninginless concepts. If it's a minimalist state, any single corporation could probably muster the resources to ignore it.

"Could probably"? C'mon!

Groups of corporations, i.e., trusts and cartels could simply form a state of their own. Any other kind of state they can simply buy. In fact, that's what we have now, with the eception that the state is independent enough from its creators that it can enforce capitalism's best interests against the will of the capitalists themselves.

Only if virtually everyone allows it. But there is a difference, these trusts/corps buy protection from government making it illegal for individuals wronged by the trust to resist or fight. If they want to create their own state, somewhat like an island out in the Atlantic serving as little more than a haven for big businesses, so what? Your argument is that a smaller government limited to securing our rights could not resist big business. The irony of your argument is that big business did not get it's protection and favoritism until after government began getting big and stepping on our rights as power became more centralized.

The great irony is that libertarians play the same social role as fascists, they are a tool of powerful corporations to crush the lower classes, but will find themselves powerless to move against the excesses of the corporations.

Your premise is true for any system. Democracy can't work because of corruption. Communism can't work because of corruption. [fill in the blank] can't work because of corruption. Explain why a libertarian government could not curb corporate malfeasance.

Should they try, they will be swept aside, just like the Stormtroopers were.

Equating respect for freedom with fascism because you don't like capitalism is absurd. Making this argument based on what corporations can do is no different than blaming you and your comrades for the sins of Stalin.

Ted -

I answered this about 10 posts ago. Basically to sum it up, the logic is flawed, and one-dimensional. It says that since people don't die and there aren't numbers showing huge death counts, everything must have been okay.

In other words, there wasn't mass starvation. We weren't debating if everything was okay, we were debating the effectiveness of charity to deal with what was the USA's worst natural and government induced calamity. Look at what charity did for 9/11. While politicians were promising money in the future, private donors gave more than a billion dollars.

Brazil has been struggling with economic problems. Most of the country eats but there are a large number of people who are underfed. (I'm not picking on Brazil because even in the US we have people who are malnurished). The new President came in and recognized this problem and has promised his population 3 square meals a day. Now why would he do this? Political motivations? Sure, that plays into it. But I don't think it's a primary motivator. Does Brazil have some large death count numbers? No, it's because people are underfed and that limits their development.

Brazil is a statist regime. I already told you to stop using anti-free market governments as examples for a free market government. Why is logic such a difficult concept for you?

Of course, no doubt you will cite government mismanagement for Brazil's woes.

No sh!t.

But that ignores a very basic idea, and that is, every single system ever tried on this planet has had a time when people have gone hungry.

Probably true, but the scope of such disasters depends on the nature of the government in place.

So despite HOW things got the way they were, the point is that you have to DEAL with bad times when they happen.

And your position is that taking away our freedom works better than freedom.

On the same token, show me numbers that show how efficienct charities have been in feeding the desparate and poor en masse.

Ahem...you are the one who claimed charity fails, you prove your proposition.

The food stamps program was a REACTIVE program instituted to fill a need. It was not a proactive program simply rooted in political motivations.

BS! It was enacted by politicians from farming states who wanted to ensure more sales, and there is no more profligate buyer than government.

The Mass Migrations were well documented. And again, I can subsist on garbage if I need to, to make the 2 day trip to from Arkansas or Oklahoma, to California.

A 2 day trip in those days? You didn't answer my question, why did people on the brink of mass starvation travel all the way to California instead of nearby states and cities? The reason they went to California was perceived opportunity, not to prevent starvation.

How do all the refugees from the civil wars in Africa get out of the country if they are starving to death? They still manage to both flee the country and starve to death at the same.

Because they weren't starving to death?

You can go to Google.com and search for Arkansas Food Riot or England Food Riot.

Link?

First you complain about me asking for a link, then you tell me to do your research for you when I ask you for a link, then you ask me for a link? Hypocrite!

What kind of system was the farm system then? Also tell me how government intrusion into the farm system caused the Dust Bowl.

The Depression was government induced. And farming practices were tied to government regulation of the economy.

Yet at the same time, farmers were simply responding with greed to this glorious free market system where the farms became overfarmed and the land mismanaged to the point that it could not withstand the natrual forces of nature.

We didn't have a free market economy.

I haven't seen a massive destruction of an entire farm region since then, have you?

We haven't had a decade long drought impacting a similarly sized region.

No feudal systems? No dictatorships? No empires? No republics? Theocracies? Mercantile systems?

What do you think monarchies are? Feudalism, dictatorships, theocracies, and mercantilism all occured under monarchies. As for the Greek and Roman republics, they were hardly comparable to the American republic.

Greek city-state democracies. Roman Republic.

Systems where most people could not vote, systems that were oligarchies at best. Were Caesar and Alexander "Presidents" or kings/rulers?

[David Floyd]

Agathon, your attempt to play Socrates is one sided and full of absurdities. Berzerker has already pointed many of them out, but don't create silly little word games and short stories, just argue your point.

[Shi Huangdi]

"But much of your arguement is centered around the idea of someone should have the right to do what they want with their body... the problem with this is that such things as drug use do not simply effect the user... they result in vast consequences to family, friends, and society as a whole...

Drug use should not be prohibited because it is a sin and it is not good for the user... but because the user, by abusing drugs, will greatly harm society. What about the children of an abusive mother, for example?"

Well I am glad you are past wanting things to be banned because they are sins. I take it you are also going to be pro-legalize prostitution and pro-legalized sodomy? As for the rest, drug use in itself doesn't harm anyone. A group of people smoking dope at a party won't nessecarily hurt anyone. Now, if the drugs lead someone to commit a crime, then they should be punished for the crime. As for your case of the children of an abusive mother- then punish the mother for being abusive and refer the matter to child services. Also, any number of things could be punished- should fatty foods be banned because a parent could die of heart disease?

Also, Speer you didn't adress everything I brought up in my argument. Just because drugs are bad doesn't mean prohibition is going to be an effective means in combatting it, and given our high crime rate going after victimless crimes really does not seem in order when the police could be working on violent crime instead.



I am not saying a libertarian society will always fail... I am simply saying that it can not exist today... we need to develop a stronger moral code among the population in order to end poverty and end the cycle of poverty and sin... and THEN will we be even able to begin to start a libertarian society. Otherwise, libertarian ideas result in only greater problems

[Ned]

The essence of this debate has been ongoing for two thousand years, if not more. Is man good or is man evil?

The libertarian assumes that man is good and will naturally make choices that will benefit society as a whole. The conservative assumes that man, or at least a good portion of them, is evil and will make choices that benefit themselves at the expense of others.

Perhaps in small homogeneous societies with good family structures, such as with the Vikings in Iceland, man was mostly if not universally good. Such societies could be more libertarian than others and not fall apart.

But, on the whole, man has enough of the selfish and criminal types that society cannot exist for long without enforced law and order. This probably has more to do with numbers of people in a given area than anything else; but it is also highly related to a lack of sense of community and a lack of extended family structures that help make people far more conscious of their duty to their family and to their community.

Religions that teach morality and provide rewards and penalties for good and bad behavior go a long way to making society more law abiding without police. However, today we see a decline in Western religions with nothing to replace it except Hollywood and rap music that teach kids the fun of drug use and of killing and raping.

Libertarianism cannot exist in today's Western civilization.

[Al B. Sure!]

Ned:

rap music? excuse me? what about the suicidal punks?

[Al B. Sure!]

Black Dragon:

I'll respond to you simply... if not prohibition... what else? I'm sure as hell not going to stand by and watch the drug situation get even more out of control with more and more drug addicts because drugs become legalized in our society... maybe we can have drugs legalized if we live in an America where we were more moral and drugs were a taboo but not officially illegal


thanks

[David Floyd]

if not prohibition... what else?

Decriminalization, of course. Freedom.

I'm sure as hell not going to stand by and watch the drug situation get even more out of control with more and more drug addicts because drugs become legalized in our society...

Well, you can make the personal decision not to use drugs, as I assume you've made the personal decision not to drink or smoke. But don't try to enforce your own personal decisions on other people.

Just a question, do you believe alcohol should be illegal?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Agathon, your attempt to play Socrates is one sided and full of absurdities. Berzerker has already pointed many of them out, but don't create silly little word games and short stories, just argue your point.

Someone else suggested that people needed to try the Socratic method - something I definitely know a lot more about than you - there is nothing wrong with the dialogue form as a way of writing philosophy - it has several advantages.

So keep your trap shut unless you have an argument to put forward - right now I'm going to rip Berzerker's ill conceived ramblings to shreds.

Hee Hee Hee

[David Floyd]

right now I'm going to rip Berzerker's ill conceived ramblings to shreds.

We're all waiting.

there is nothing wrong with the dialogue form as a way of writing philosophy - it has several advantages.

Not when only one person is writing both sides of the dialogue

[Al B. Sure!]

David:

yeah alcohol and tobacco should be illegal... they are, however, of too much practical use to be illegal... I don't care to see the entire tobacco industry which the US got a monopoly on, go to Cuba or whatever along with the entire world market of cigarette users... Same with domestic alcohols (california wine, american beer, etc.)

They're evils and their use should be condemned but for economic reasons they should remain legal... notice that heroine, coke, etc. are foreign products


And anyway... I dont think people understand what i'm saying... decriminalization will NOT work in TODAY'S America! decriminalize drugs and instantly, you will have twice as many addicts and drugs basically being seen officially as a substance condoned by society... we need to have a society where people feel the obligation to NOT do drugs (because of their harmful effects to the user and to society in general) and THEN, they can be decriminalized


thanks

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It is rare to find a person who can type but not read.

link?