I’m starting to feel guilty that we’re not actually participating in this thread properly.
Could you say something nice about Ayn Randroids so I can sneer at you? Or is that too selfish of me?
I will pay you B0.001 for this transaction between two rational actors that hurts no-one else.
Okay. I just read some more of the other comments.
Let’s go back to the tautological singularity thread-jack instead. It’s way more fun. Plus, you can dance.
From the article: “I tend to take the stance that Libertarianism is like Leninism: a fascinating, internally consistent political theory with some good underlying points that, regrettably, makes prescriptions about how to run human society that can only work if we replace real messy human beings with frictionless spherical humanoids of uniform density (because it relies on simplifying assumptions about human behaviour which are unfortunately wrong).”
I’ve always said libertarians were mirror-marxists. Opposite positions, but same dogmatism, extremism, loaded language, and anti-empricism.
Exactly.
I’m blown away by the convincing weight of your “No U”.
Oh, btw, this old thing:
scratch that, you really didn’t read your own, uninteresting, post.
so to save myself from the same fate (and remain with your off topic responses), have you even read the comic Maus? been about twenty-one years since i did. i might get a copy, but i still remember how i felt reading it.
Not surprised that you couldn’t get a single coherent non-ahistorical reply. The “power structures” have existed since civilization has existed. Libertarians truly live in the realm of fantasy.
Holy long thread, Batman. But I just have to pick one thing out that I never saw anyone point at…
Is this sentence really representative of how libertarians think? I ask because there’s a bit of a logical flaw in suggesting that it is possible for a rule to be voluntary.
[quote=“nonfer, post:187, topic:17052, full:true”]have you even read the comic Maus? been about twenty-one years since i did. i might get a copy, but i still remember how i felt reading it.
[/quote]
The username isn’t directly related but I’m definitely a Spiegelman fan, pick up the graphic novels! Well worth it.
It also feeds into their idea of Binding Contract Supremacy (but not for me.)
Others should be forced to stick to horrible contracts entered semi-consensually, but they, personally, shouldn’t be bound to follow those terms.
? <-obviously nothing’s perfect?
cost. can’t own a copy of everything i’d want. don’t think i’d like myself if i could.
Here’s the thing, libertarian philosophy isn’t utopian so I’m not sure why you would go to the trouble to write all those words.
And what did you mean about getting ones hands dirty. Seems rather sinister.
Well, I think you should read a bit about monopolies on force and and reputation economies. If you haven’t thought about these subjects I can understand how voluntary contracts would seems confusing.
It’s far too simplistic is essentially the same as saying “no it isn’t”, But here’s the thing, if you look up the term this is how it is defined. It’s what economists mean when they say the word. Of course there is more involved, a simple sentence or two can’t encapsulate the whole idea, it would seem few definitions do. Why would you set such a high bar for this particular definition?
horse
hôrs/
noun
noun: horse; plural noun: horses
1.
a solid-hoofed plant-eating domesticated mammal with a flowing mane and tail, used for riding, racing, and to carry and pull loads.
Does this definition cover all aspects of horses? No. There’s little history about their use in warfare, there evolutionary history, predators, mating habits, etc. But I would hazard a guess and say you would accept this as a definition.
Black markets don’t exist? Swap meets, Online game markets, classified ads, etc? Free markets, or versions of them exists all over. I bet you participate in some of them.
They are a result of government interference. They aren’t controlled by governments. [quote=“jetfx, post:154, topic:17052”]
Besides black markets still rely on things like government created money.
[/quote]
Wait, isn’t this thread the result of an article about bitcoins? The use of government currency doesn’t say anything about the markets, government currency is used because they were few alternatives… until bitcoin.
The ethical argument is predicated on participation in the market economy being voluntary. Participation in the market economy is not voluntary. Therefore the ethical argument fails.
? I never claimed all market actors wouldn’t want more participants. Only that certain ones would and that those market actors tend to have more clout than the market actors who do want more participants. I didn’t even mention “regulatory capture” since we’re presumably talking about a market with minimal regulations in the first place. The point was that in a market with minimal regulations there will still be market actors who attempt to “game the system” through any means at their disposal.
It has merit anyway. You say people aren’t stuck at one skill level. And yet people still work at Walmart when they’d prefer not to. And in fact, many people are in an unfortunate position of having to work two 35 hour a week jobs (without health insurance meaning they could be financially ruined at any given time by a health problem that’s no fault of their own) which leaves very little time for developing new skills. Do you think anyone would put themselves in such a situation voluntarily? Of course not. As we’ve already gone over, participation in the market economy is not voluntary.
And no, people are not free to start stores that compete with Walmart and “borrow its methods.” Its methods are based on economy of scale. No independent small businessman could implement the Walmart business plan. You need a nationwide fleet of trucks, warehouses, and giant superstores to do that.
In fact, many people aren’t in a position to take on the risk involved in starting a business at all since the vast majority of businesses fail and as we’ve already gone over a few times, people need food and shelter.
That’s kind of the point that you seem incapable of getting. Exploitation is a thing. Desperate people do things they’d prefer not to for the sake of survival. You call that voluntary. I call that a simplistic and unrealistic view of the world.
Recap:
You: Libertarians don’t draw distinctions between different groups in power.
Me: That’s stupid since different groups in power obviously have different effects.
You: Oh, well of course we recognize distinctions between different groups in power.
Me: You just said the opposite.
You: Yes, libertarians don’t recognize distinctions between different groups in power. Just because there are differences between different groups in power doesn’t mean we recognize them.
I think I’m done. You’ve pretty much entirely stopped making sense.
If one agrees with the idea that market participation is coerced that might be true.
You used that as a reason that market actors wouldn’t tend to want more participants. I don’t think the actions of a sub-set of actors disproves my claim.
Of course. But that doesn’t speak to what I said.
I suspect most people would prefer not to work.
70 hours a week? Not sure if that’s true.
There are many reasons people end up where they are. Yes I think some people choose the early easy path that doesn’t work very well once they’ve started a family. Where I grew up people chose career paths like you describe. Many still follow that path, many have moved up.
Of course someone with limited resources couldn’t compete. But groups of small businesses could. My point is that there are options, some better or more workable than others. Innovation and imagination still provide many opportunities. Why so fixated on what “can’t” be done? Walmart itself wouldn’t exist if the founder believed as you do.
Sure, so… what…? People should throw up their hands and give up?
Wow, you seem to enjoy congratulating yourself. My easily understood point is that although different power groups have different characteristics in general it is immaterial to libertarian arguments. So “we don’t make a distinction” isn’t some gotcha. We don’t care the color of the boot that holds us down, just that it’s holding us down. See?
See, this is the sort of statement to which I can respond to something about “pots and kettles” and have that response actually make sense.
You’re right. Apologies, sometimes I go off the range a bit.
