This is going to be a huge post...
So the only respect of freedom and liberty would be market driven? Freedom and liberty aren't moral absolutes, just things we should view in light of their profitability at any given moment?
You're sort of missing the point. Freedom and liberty are the ideals. Society set up on those principles thus naturally defaults to one based on free exchange and voluntary associations. The point is that the best way to preserve t hose ideals is via market pressures. The point is that if not everyone supports the ideals, the best way to coopt them it to just make it so doing so is the most profitable.
Are you saying that corruption can only exist within the state?
No, I'm saying that corruption is inherent to the state, but not exclusive to the state, and the size and nature of the state attracts and even incentivizes corruption in a way that doesn't exist without the state.
Two different times I have brought up scenarios during discussions about this IRL. It was explained to me that this is what the free market in action looks like. If a business starts shitting on the community it serves (comprised of free individuals), they would be free to leave. The business would then be forced to restrain itself out of concern for its profits. Of course, this was two separate dogmatic individuals. No idea if it represents the ideology as a whole.
Besides, if you are enslaved, being violently robbed, and held for ransom, given the numerous travel options available to modern man, wouldn't escape seem to be a common sense solution?
The faulty premise to the question implies that somehow we should be forced to leave and give up our property because the state is oppressive. It shifts the onus onto those who are under the thumb rather than recognizing the acts of the person doing it. The second fact is: no where else is better, so there is no where to flee to. You can't escape the state. Even if you wanted, it actually costs money to renounce citizenship, on the order of thousands of dollars, so even that is not some sort of escape.
Some of what you have described with regards to libertarianism I agree with. Limiting government, reducing taxes, the impact of regulations, etc...; I don't believe a completely free unregulated market is always for the better though. Should we dismantle the corrupted state, then allow those who corrupted it to run wild? That sounds like what I have heard advocated in much of the right-libertarian/Rand-bs I have been exposed too.
The flaw here is implying that they will 'run wild.' It's not that these humans are unique bad, they're just responding to the pressures and avenues open to them. In a way, I don't FAULT a company for engaging in corrupt practices with the state because market pressures created by the state
demands they do so. In short, they MUST engage in such behavior because if they don't, another company will a drive them out of business.
Further, it wouldn't matter if a completely free unregulated market is always for the better (though I'd argue it is,) because it's the
moral and ethical thing to do.
Yes, it may be impractical logic to suggest "if you don't like it, leave" to someone unhappy with the way things are. It is probably just as impractical to suggest that consumers have all the power, since situations crop up where deciding not to support a company may be equally as inconvenient. And when you consider the profit potential of controlling a market, there is considerable motivation for businesses to work towards that end.
Yes, but without a state, such market capture is functionally impossible to do. It simply impossible for a company to amass a power that could rival that of the state.
What I do object to is when people complain about their taxes as if they were imposed on them by royal edict or an occupying hostile force, and therefore consider the taxes illegitimate. They may be unjust or unfair, but they're not illegitimate. My direct affirmative assent is not needed for anything the government does, unless it's for something that affects only me, such as consenting to a search of my home or car.
Ok, but... why? How is it any more legitimate?
Well, it's a "crap shoot" wasn't really an argument. Lol. Just saying that you can't count on people to help you out. But from what I understand, you are saying that people's morals will be the thing that will motivate them to help others, and so there will in fact be people to help.
You can count of people to help out when you incentivize helping out. Morals, self-interest (ie: I help out because I may need to be helped out later) and so on. Further, the argument basically would then be saying that folks are too selfish and dumb to help each other, and so need a state to force them. Yet if folks are too selfish and dumb to help each other, how are they not so selfish and dumb to elect people or form a government that will help these people?
Just want to clarify what you mean by "Because if we're discussing what is moral and ethical, it doesn't even matter if the result would be hardship, because it is the moral thing to do." Like, if someone needed help and it caused you hardship to help them, you would help them anyway because it's the moral thing to do?
So voluntary actions are kind of key for making this work. But that means people have to buy into it and you have to agree on some "principled baselines". And so that's why you guys are arguing about morals so much. Do you really think that you can get people to agree on what is moral?
The first bit is correct, in how it applies to me directly. More broadly, the point is that if something is right, it's right. It may hurt to do, but that is not an argument
not to do it.
However, I disagree that folks necessary have to agree to principled baselines for the system to work. It's largely self-regulating. When they only 'crimes' are theft, murder, rape, assault, fraud, etc (IE: aggression against another person,) it self regulates. Pretty much everyone already agrees these things AREN'T moral, and they can believe whatever they want else isn't moral, and with freedom of association, they can choose not to interact with folks who do things they think aren't moral otherwise, so long as they don't initiate force to try and stop them. Without the power of the state, imposing such moral will on others is basically impossible.
@Behemoth Is this worth people dying over?
Is doing the moral and ethical thing worth folks dying over? Yes. Anyone making this argument is also basically just holding folks for ransom.
But what is "the state"? When you have a large social group (an intentional group that has a commonly-held purpose; i.e., more than a collection of atomized individuals), there must be some type of decisionmaking apparatus for that group (though I suspect you would disagree, and if so, please describe how decisions that affect more than a few members would be made.). That decisionmaking apparatus is the state. That might or might not be what the members call it, but functionally, that's what it is. In a smaller, more primitive society, the apparatus would be small and informal. In a modern, large nation/state, the apparatus is large, specialized, and bureaucratic. Or, is what you're referring to as the "state" something more specific?
The state, in the way I use it, is the organization that holds a monopoly on the use of force. The state, in this regard, is the one who taxes and regulates, etc. They claim the exclusive use of force in a region, in essence.
The problem is I've asked several times about what decisions are there that MUST be made by a large apparatus, and have yet to get an answer? I have some suspicions but I'd rather have you actually tell me what issues NEED such a large apparatus to function?
I'm actually interested in learning more about this, because my knowledge of libertarianism is admittedly superficial and at least somewhat based on popular caricatures. However, you would be a more effective advocate if: (1) you weren't so unrelentingly argumentative and dismissive, and (2) you recognized that just about everyone here knows less about the subject than you do, and tried to meet them halfway in the interest of actually communicating your knowledge (and if teaching about libertarianism is not your intent, why are you participating?). For example, instead of using terms that may have a specialized meaning in libertarian philosophy, and then scolding your interlocutors because they don't understanding them or they use them improperly, why not explain the concepts in terms that we can understand?
I'm sorry if this comes off AS argumentative and dismissive, but I'm disinclined to change much because I will argue what I feel needs to be argued, and dismiss what can be dismissed. I don't, though, simply dismiss without given a reason WHY. I'm not the one who was telling folks what they said was ridiculous but never bothering to explain why, for example. Thus, I find this entire idea that somehow I am the one who needs to change a bit, frankly, disingenuous. To say nothing that disregarding an argument based on the tone in which it was given is hardly something to be praised either.
On the other hand, I can understand the issue of using certain terms, though I'm not entirely sure what terms are largely specialized that I've been using, and if asked, I'll eagerly explain them. I'm not exactly sure which terms are in need of such definition, because yes, defining terms is necessary, I just don't see which terms are in need OF it.
Incidentally, my original intent was more to simply describe why I wasn't voting, but has grown into a broader discussion over principles.
I still don't have a sense of how a libertarian society would look and function in its practical details. That's what I'm trying to understand. Maybe there's a fictional account of such a society somewhere out there. If it's thoughtful and not propagandistic/ideological, I'd definitely like to read it.
Off the top of my head I don't have one, aside from the previously linked things like Practical Anarchy. I'm certain I could find more if you wanted.
I have another question! Lol. I should start a thread called "Diane has a Question"
What if you don't own any property besides your own body? So you rent land - or an apartment on someone else's land and live according to the morals of whomever's land you are living on/renting? And you just gotta hope they are not gonna be dicks? Or everyone is living according to roughly the same moral guidelines so it will be ok? But still you gotta hope the landowner is not going to take advantage.
Well, you almost certainly own SOME property, IE: objects or items, but I think you're using property in terms of 'real estate' or land, and to that end, you'd be bound by whatever the terms of the contract are. It isn't about them 'not being dicks,' it's about contracts. Nothing changes from how it is now, in a general sense: you're still at the whims of the property owner. The question no one asks, though, is 'why should I have a right to impose upon a property owner against their will?'
Avenues of resolving issues, such as arbitration and dispute resolution organizations will certainly exist, as well.
So, in response to this idea of red herrings and services for which there is a demand but no competition, there are some pretty real situations where there is demand but zero incentive. Or at least I cannot for the life of me think of how to incentivize foster care, for example.
Cause if you have kids who are living in abusive situations, I guess you can call the privatized police, but what happens to the kids? Where do they go? I can't think of a supply/demand/privatization situation for that. And there's A LOT of fucking kids in foster homes. Do you really think people will volunteer for that gig? Or you just leave everyone alone cause what they do on their property is their business, even if some insane shit is going down over there?
Same kind of thing for adults with disabilities. Even if they have parents who are able to care for them, eventually their parents are gonna die and there is no one to care for them. So what happens to those guys? That kind of care is expensive. Will people volunteer for that too?
Well, again, we get into this sort of catch-22: if folks are too selfish to fund or enable foster care, how are they not too selfish to elect leaders to set up such a system? Further, charity HAS a PR incentive, even aside from the simple fact that folks aren't bastards; folks DO engage in charity, lots of it, and with access to greater resources, would likely do even more. In the US, the government takes between 33% to maybe even 50% or more of what you earn each year. Can you imagine what you could do with 33% more income, let alone double it? We already give to charity at a high rate, how much more with so much more income to throw around?
Yes, in an abusive situation, folks can act on behalf of the children, who have rights to not be aggressed against the same as everyone else. There are already private charities for taking care of these kids as well, and how much more will there be funding for them without the state draining resources? The point is, if there is a demand for it (and given society already has these things, there clearly is,) there will be folks funded to take care of this.
The same goes with disabilities. Largely, I suspect insurance models will be applied to far more things, as well. It should be noted that the current state of things has disconnected us from the community. Sans the state, with more wealth to flow out INTO the community, these bonds are reestablished, further because it becomes necessary to rely ON the community far more.
I can really respect and understand this POV. Johnson is a realist and recognizes that the actors in our economic and judicial markets are not operating on the same level of power and access. This is what I still don't understand: how would a true/pure Libertarian (not a de facto republican as Behemoth regards Johnson) address a real-world problem like this?
The problem is that what Johnson is ignoring is that, as constituted, 'corporations' exist only as creatures of the government. They limit liability and obfuscate things, and exist due to government charter. My question would be this: how did 'Molycorp' get into the situation in the first place? WHY couldn't they pursue them in a private standpoint? Arguably, it would be due to the legal protections created entirely by the government for corporations.
