The only way for libertarianism to work is if every human had only good intentions. Since that’s simply never going to happen libertarianism will never work. Just my opinion feel free to disagree.
You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.
Everyone loves freedom! Like the freedom to:
pay a child to work in a mine
schedule workers for 80+ hours a week
drive without speed limits
use as much water out of the local river as desired
dump waste into that same river
sell unregulated, untested medicine
So obviously there are “freedoms” that mainly serve to infringe on the actual freedoms of others. Those just happen to be the ones that libertarians don’t talk about so much but are really what they’re after.
You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.
I apologize, I neglected to write a specific part of my comment that ties in its intent. When I said “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms”, I did not mean to infer “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms at the expense of another”. The limit to the maximization of rights and freedoms is that they cannot infringe on the rights and freedoms of another. This was my mistake. I apologize for this confusion.
pay a child to work in a mine
I don’t believe in child labor. I believe that a child is not capable of giving consent. I believe that a civilized, and free society is dependent on the ability of one to give consent. Exploitation arises out of inability to give consent.
schedule workers for 80+ hours a week
If one consents, then there should be no issue.
drive without speed limits
Speed limits, and public roads are an interesting issue for sure. They are actually rather complicated issues to tackle. That being said, specifically for speed limits, I would argue that they are justified as an individual driving dangerously fast is recklessly endangering the lives of those around them – this would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.
use as much water out of the local river as desired
This is also a difficult issue to tackle. I think this is where Georgism typically comes in. I am inclined to say that one cannot freely take water from a river for the same reason that one cannot freely emit pollution. That being said, in terms of tort law, it would probably be easier to make a claim against a polluter than one taking water from a river. Perhaps a limit could be imposed on the exploitation of a natural resource through a tax (this, I think, is in line with an argument that a Georgist would make).
dump waste into that same river
This would be pollution, and could be handled through tort law, and other environmental protection laws.
sell unregulated, untested medicine
I generally see no issue with this. One cannot willfully endanger the public without repercussions. I suppose the argument could then be should it be preventative, or remedial. That being said, the FDA, for example, does not only mandate a drugs safety, they also mandate it’s efficacy. There is an enormous difference between mandating a drug’s efficacy vs. mandating it’s safety.
[source] Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1962 to require that new drugs be shown effective, as well as safe, to obtain FDA approval.
I appreciate your thorough response, but I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.
But also. No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.
And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin. Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?
I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.
Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term “maximization” is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.
No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.
When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one’s expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One’s ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,
And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin.
In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling “junk” medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it’s efficacy.
Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?
Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn’t care about it’s own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One’s ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn’t mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.
I think you are possibly confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism does not make the argument that the state is well functioning without a central authoritative mediating body – I point you to the model of a Nightwatchman State.
I personally don’t fully agree. Libertarianism just doesn’t work at all. It is not even a complete system from a logical sense. It falls apart when faced with basic scrutiny, or they just theorize a system that’s basically the same as a central government but with a private entity name stamped on it.
It is an ideology stemming from a basic principle, but they sadly don’t seem to think of the entire system as a whole.
I’d be happy to tackle this with you, but just to avoid the frequent “actually, this isn’t libertarianism, this is the other X system”, can you please define libertarianism from your perspective?
I view libertarianism as the marriage between liberalism, and minarchy. A libertarian would seek to equally maximise the rights and freedoms of the individual, and to minimize the size of the state.
You first start by talking about marrying liberalism and minarchism. I assumed you meant that as an intro and less as a definition, but if you meant it as a definition, I would need to understand: what of liberalism and what of minarchy are you taking? Should I just take the Wikipedia definition and trust that you’ll follow it?
You then said maximizing rights and freedoms of the individual, and minimize the size of the state.
The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough? Some see States in modern Western nations as small, not intervening as much in personal matters compared to the 3rd world, and they offer many freedoms in comparison. But some view them as too big. If you left that up to the reader to decide, then some will call the US small enough, at least in its internal politics.
And then which rights are necessary? Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school. Is the right to hate speech required? Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required? Who even decides and enforces that?
This is somewhat intentional. One should note that Libertarianism is not perfectly monolithic in its ideology – in that it does not outline a regimented doctrine which must be adhered to for one to have the privilege of calling themself a libertarian. Instead, I would argue that it outlines a set of shared values being that one recognizes the importance of the state, but also possesses the goal to minimize it to the extent that is realistically attainable, and also that one possesses the desire to equally maximize the rights and freedoms of themself, as well as their fellow citizenry. You will find no exact agreement between libertarians on many precise social issues. What you will instead find is a set of common shared ideals with which they base their opinions.
what of liberalism
Liberalism, I would say, is where libertarianism inherits its desire for freedom. It outlines the philosophy that an individual should fundamentally posses a set of inalienable rights, e.g. right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, equality before the law, consent of the governed, right to the private ownership of property, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but to instead give an outline to how I define liberalism.
what of minarchy
Minarchy, loosely speaking, is the desire to have a small state. Fundamentally, libertarianism will have the common denominator of a “Nightwatchmen State” in that the state should provide, at the very least, national protection through the military, and the enforcement of personal, and property rights through a police force and the judicial system.
The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough?
I would argue that the minimization of the state is not necessarily a destination, but, instead, it is an aspiration. While you could say that “small enough” could be a pure Nightwatchmen State, I am very hesitant to do so, as it would be to assert that this is the ultimate, and perfect form of a minimal state, which I feel would be an arrogant statement to make.
And then which rights are necessary?
Answering this with precision, and confidence carries the same sort of issues as that of answering “how small of a state is enough”? The world is unfortunately not perfect enough to be able to create such exact, and precise rules. We instead must state guidelines, frameworks, and principles from which we base our opinions, and legislation – we set our baseline, and determine on a case-by-case basis how laws fit in. One should be granted the rights to guarantee them maximal amount of freedom as can be realistically given so long as it does not infringe on the rights, and freedoms of others.
Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school.
The right to freedom of religion is not the assertion that one must practice a religion, but freely have the choice between them. It is the right to choose to practice a religion. I’m not well acquainted with the laws, and politics of France, but to ban one’s religious wear is to infringe on their free practice of their religion.
Is the right to hate speech required?
I would encourage you to define that. I challenge you to come up with a definition that is not based in personal opinion. One should not have the right to not be offended.
Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required?
These sorts of specific cases are usually left up to municipal bylaw, and tort law. A libertarian argument could be that no one should infringe on one’s private enjoyment their life without their consent. If one incurred damages for such non-consensual infringements, they should be properly compensated.
Also there’s the fact that nearly everybody’s idea of freedom is drastically different
Libertarianism seeks to maximise freedom.
some people’s freedoms infringe on others.
Libertarianism does not, in any way, shape, or form, advocate the idea that one is able infringe on the rights, and freedoms of another without their consent. One should not be allowed to impart a cost on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.
What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?
These sorts of issues are examples of where we must accept that we live in an imperfect world, and, as such, we must make compromises. I completely agree that one should not be allowed to freely emit noise pollution, as it directly affects the livelihoods of all who are within earshot – imparting a psychological cost, one could say. It is not realistic to say that everyone must be completely quiet unless all parties affected have given their consent, and as such, we make reasonable limits based on context as to the amount of noise pollution that we can generate. These limits are most commonly implemented as municipal noise pollution bylaws.
Do you know hitting that disagree button is trying to silence my free speech?
On the contrary. If I hit the dislike button, I am actually making use of my free speech. The fact that you are able to say that you think I am silencing your free speech is proof that you still maintain your freedom of speech. Now, if I somehow had the ability to remove your comment (looking at you, mods), that would be silencing your free speech.
Funny how that someone is often the same who assumes humanity is flawless when libertarianism! Could it be that those people are just greedy and selfish hypocrites? Nah!
Which is a very uninformed (or intentionally misleading) thing to say, because Communism from it’s very beginning has always assumed that there are bad actors and always will be, hence the whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing.
The idea (in theory) was that once the proleteriat seizes power, they would act akin to a dictator in ancient Rome, who would be given the extraordinary powers to handle extraordinary circumstances (such as, in this case, the (re)construction of society). It’s not implying totalitarian rule.
It’s also the state power to oppress counter revolutionaries and the former high class, often through violence and forced labour. That to me is a form of dictatorship, even if it does provide better conditions and freedom to much more people than the newly oppressed.
I’m not saying it to praise it or condemn it, I just think it’s a fact at this point.
Communism wont work because it will never be implemented. If a country ever implements true communism it will experience extreme brain drain and be left with only the most unskilled people.
If a country ever implements true communism it will experience extreme brain drain and be left with only the most unskilled people.
I’m not sure where you got this idea from. I’m not particularly informed on the subject, but when I look up the dictionary definition of communism, I get this:
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Emphasis mine. If people with more ability are paid more, then they shouldn’t be flocking out of the country, right?
I believe you may be misinterpereting “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. It’s not about giving those with more ability more than those with less ability but instead to redistribute the fruits of labour, generated by those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
Why even work hard if you cant spend the money to own something/start a business. What will you spend the money on? The good of humanity? Get out of of here with that bullshit. If my country inplements communism im leaving on a first plane to a place where my skills will benefit me.
My understanding, however limited, is that “property” means something different in this context. Essentially, it means things like real estate and businesses, things that make money. You can own food, clothes, a TV, watches, a car, whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t make money.
If you wanted to start a business, you probably could, and you wouldn’t need to pay for it. The State would own the business, and you would be paid to run that business. This absolves you of all the risk associated with it, and you get paid more than a grocery store shelf stocker because you’re doing a harder job, and thus demonstrating greater ability.
So you’re dependant on the government and can’t (not allowed to) do anything about it. Sounds great. My car can make money, my computer can make money, but i guess im not allowed to do it if big daddy Lenin doesn’t want me to.
“Communism won’t work because I only work for selfish gain so everyone else must be the same as me. Anyone who says they’d work for non-selfish reasons must be lying because I’m selfish and everyone else must be just like me. And if they set up a society where selfishness wasn’t the main motivator, I’d be out of there to go where I could still be selfish. Therefore communism is bullshit.”
Communist societies have had their problems but this has never been a good argument.
It’s ok comrade. Uninformed peoole often says so, but the braindrain in communism has been accouted for. A bit of a barbed wire, some dogs, a few guys with daddy issues and a gun will stop any brains crossing the border. /s
Except freedom of information and freedom of action are two of the first things to die without regulation. Company towns and crooked newspapers are hallmarks of low-regulation.
It’s easier to vote bad people out of positions of power in a powerful state than it is to prevent them from abusing executive roles in powerful conglomerates.
Is it still libertarianism if those freedoms don’t exist anymore? I don’t think libertarians argue for no regulations.
Regarding the bad people, the trick is that bad people don’t look bad, much like captured markets offer the illusion of choice. So it’s difficult to vote them out.
The thing is that we argue different moments in development. You compare the correction of the corrupted states whereas I was talking about maintaining the functioning states.
It’s strictly speaking not libertarian, but libertarianism is a left wing ideology and the post is clearly referring to the right wing self-ascribed “libertarians” who do in fact argue against regulations roughly indiscriminately…
I never said it’s easy to vote them out, I said it’s easier than holding corrupt private executives accountable, for the same captured market illusion of choice reasons.
Don’t understand what you’re trying to say in the last part, don’t think your assessment really reflects my goals, sorry.
There can be rough “libertarians” but I think most don’t want to dismantle a libertarian state but instead want to create one. A lost opportunity where left and right could meet.
To me, the meme is not clearly right wing because the clown looks like the joker.
Let me shift the last part a bit. Corrupt executives are expected. That’s why freedom is important so that nobody is locked in with them. The same cannot be said for civil servants. As long as a party covers important topics, it can be corrupt in many other areas and voters cannot change anything.
I just don’t see the distinction. Without a government with actual regulatory teeth, those corrupt executives are just as liable to lock people in. Dismantling state power just gives those executives more opportunities to abuse their power. You can’t reduce government and expect private interests to not fill the vacuum. The concept that private executives with no voter accountability would be less corrupt than politicians is wholly ridiculous.
Those executives can also use the state for abuse. It’s easier to get tax money with one government contract than having to sell something to all citizens. Or remember those epi pens. Regulations can be used to massively increase profits.
The point of free markets is that executives can be corrupt. Instead of voting every 5 years, customers can immediately react and buy somewhere else.
You may be right that private interests don’t immediately fill up a government vacuum. With the internet, times may have changed and it could be easy for citizens to coordinate.
It’s just like socialism; great concept, but impossible to perfectly implement. That said, I’d still prefer a system where I maintain independence and freedom than any alternative since humans are inherently are own largest problems.
I’d prefer a system similar to what we have in germany right now as it is a mix of socialism and capitalism in a way that reduces the exploitation that free market capitalism brings. Complete freedom in market almost always leads to exploitation which is terrible
How exactly does Germany reduce exploitation from capitalism? Is it labor laws? I would like to remind you that having social programs and laws that benefit the working class is not socialism.
Maybe saying socialist is an overstatement i just think that our current system is a step in the right direction as there are laws in place to reduce exploitation and improve the situation for workers. It is still very flawed and i think it could be better but there are many places where it is bad, the US for example
What, specifically, are you meaning when you use the term “capitalism”? There is a difference, for example, between an anarcho-capitalist, or fundamentally free market, and a competitive free market. One is alright with the existance of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour, and the other is not.
Respectfully, I think the opposite. I think, for the most part, a free® market naturally benefits humans with good intentions and harms those with bad intentions.
For example, let’s say in a free market, somebody wanted to start a business with horrible working conditions, horrible salary, horrible everything. Now, if the economy is real bad then people might work there, but for the most part, that business is going to fail because people won’t work there, and would choose other jobs instead. So in this case, a free market actually incentivizes “good intentions”. The business owner will have to improve work conditions, salary, etc. so that people will work there instead of elsewhere.
And one of the important aspects of a free market is the ability to start a competing business. If there was a company with overall poor working conditions and salary, it would highly incentivize someone to start a new company with better conditions, because they could pull in all the workers from the other company.
And look, I’m not saying this is fool proof and works 100% of the time, and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a healthy amount of regulation. But if you compare this to an economic system where businesses are run by the government, you can simply just be stuck with shitty work conditions and shitty salary, and not be able to do anything about it.
That’s fine to disagree. I used to believe this back when I took Econ classes in college, every Econ professor is a libertarian lmao. I just don’t think a free market would punish bad actors. Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap
That only works when worker are less replaceable and desperate. Their are a lots of open job positions today but most pay less than the cost of living.
Lots of open job positions is very healthy for the economy, it gives the worker the ability to choose, and it makes companies have to compete. A ton of companies are literally being forced to increase their wages in order to get enough employees.
I’m not saying it’s unhealthly I am just saying they don’t help if they don’t pay above the cost of living. Sure you can get a job paying 15 USD but that isn’t even going to cover rent + utilities. So for now your stuck with your job and don’t have the option to switch.
My concern is that “bad product” to the consumer is mostly a matter of price and quality; environmental impact, legality, and even employee safety rank much lower with the average person as far as choosing where to spend their money. Companies can and do operate for years on the suffering of the lower class in particular, often openly doing so, and still make oodles of money.
Firstly, I think it completely aligns with libertarian principles to regulate environmental impact. If a company pollutes the airs and rivers, that physical affects everybody.
Secondly, yeah, it is sad that many consumers will turn a blind eye to poor working conditions and environmental impact … but I do think there is a limit. And honestly, most of the big companies in our nation are making some attempt to improve environmental conditions, probably because they know that some people will stop buying their product if they don’t. It’s not a lot, but I think the fact that it’s happening at all is some proof that companies can certainly be pressured into doing the right thing without legislation.
What I like about the free-ish markets is that it at least gives you a personal choice. If you don’t want to support a business, you don’t have to. It sucks if other people support it, but let’s be honest, if like 50% of the country wants to support a business that you don’t like, then what can you expect?
Yeah the main lesson I’ve taken away from the last decade of cryptocurrency instability, NFTs, and things like algorithmically generated judicial sentencing guidelines that perpetuated the existing racial biases while making them seem more legitimate because “the computer can’t be wrong” is that we should run our whole society with them.
Algocracy uses algorithms to inform societal decisions, while Blockchain is a transparent, decentralized ledger system. People often confuse cryptocurrencies with the underlying Blockchain technology, even though they serve different purposes.
Comparing the challenges of Algocracy to the volatility of cryptocurrencies is like assessing the potential of online commerce based on early internet connectivity issues.
Biases in Algocracy are the result of poor design. With meticulous design and continuous oversight, the potential of Algocracy can be fully realized.
Biases in Algocracy are the result of poor design.
You can’t design a neutral algorithm. The algorithm has to be designed to optimize something. What that thing is is a political and philosophical decision. Government by algorithm is indirect government by whoever’s values shaped the design of the algorithm.
Algorithms can no doubt assist in regulating systems but they don’t resolve any of the deeper political issues about values, goals and what constitutes improvement.
Of course, tech bros will claim they can sell you a neutral algorithm that will run things better than people, but that’s just because tech bros’ political philosophy is basically “just do it my way because obviously I’m smarter than you.” They won’t even notice how their algorithms are biased, because they’re not even interested in that question.
Surely that citydao wasn’t created by someone with profit motives and not aware that in a few years it will be another worthless and abandoned NFT-bullshit.
The only way for libertarianism to work is if every human had only good intentions. Since that’s simply never going to happen libertarianism will never work. Just my opinion feel free to disagree.
Libertarianism is a theory espoused to those with good intentions by people that have bad intentions.
It doesn’t work for almost anyone. But it super works for some. That’s the point.
You don’t believe that upholding, and maximising individual rights, and freedoms is a net positive?
You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.
Everyone loves freedom! Like the freedom to:
So obviously there are “freedoms” that mainly serve to infringe on the actual freedoms of others. Those just happen to be the ones that libertarians don’t talk about so much but are really what they’re after.
I apologize, I neglected to write a specific part of my comment that ties in its intent. When I said “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms”, I did not mean to infer “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms at the expense of another”. The limit to the maximization of rights and freedoms is that they cannot infringe on the rights and freedoms of another. This was my mistake. I apologize for this confusion.
I don’t believe in child labor. I believe that a child is not capable of giving consent. I believe that a civilized, and free society is dependent on the ability of one to give consent. Exploitation arises out of inability to give consent.
If one consents, then there should be no issue.
Speed limits, and public roads are an interesting issue for sure. They are actually rather complicated issues to tackle. That being said, specifically for speed limits, I would argue that they are justified as an individual driving dangerously fast is recklessly endangering the lives of those around them – this would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.
This is also a difficult issue to tackle. I think this is where Georgism typically comes in. I am inclined to say that one cannot freely take water from a river for the same reason that one cannot freely emit pollution. That being said, in terms of tort law, it would probably be easier to make a claim against a polluter than one taking water from a river. Perhaps a limit could be imposed on the exploitation of a natural resource through a tax (this, I think, is in line with an argument that a Georgist would make).
This would be pollution, and could be handled through tort law, and other environmental protection laws.
I generally see no issue with this. One cannot willfully endanger the public without repercussions. I suppose the argument could then be should it be preventative, or remedial. That being said, the FDA, for example, does not only mandate a drugs safety, they also mandate it’s efficacy. There is an enormous difference between mandating a drug’s efficacy vs. mandating it’s safety.
I appreciate your thorough response, but I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.
But also. No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.
And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin. Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?
Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term “maximization” is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.
When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one’s expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One’s ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,
In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling “junk” medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it’s efficacy.
Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn’t care about it’s own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One’s ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn’t mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.
The problem is that it doesn’t work even if everyone has good intentions. It needs everyone to agree on what “good intentions” even means.
I think you are possibly confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism does not make the argument that the state is well functioning without a central authoritative mediating body – I point you to the model of a Nightwatchman State.
I personally don’t fully agree. Libertarianism just doesn’t work at all. It is not even a complete system from a logical sense. It falls apart when faced with basic scrutiny, or they just theorize a system that’s basically the same as a central government but with a private entity name stamped on it.
It is an ideology stemming from a basic principle, but they sadly don’t seem to think of the entire system as a whole.
I don’t believe that any informed libertarian would advocate for a corporatocracy.
Would you be able to give some specific examples to back up your claim?
I’d be happy to tackle this with you, but just to avoid the frequent “actually, this isn’t libertarianism, this is the other X system”, can you please define libertarianism from your perspective?
I view libertarianism as the marriage between liberalism, and minarchy. A libertarian would seek to equally maximise the rights and freedoms of the individual, and to minimize the size of the state.
My issue with this definition is how vague it is.
You first start by talking about marrying liberalism and minarchism. I assumed you meant that as an intro and less as a definition, but if you meant it as a definition, I would need to understand: what of liberalism and what of minarchy are you taking? Should I just take the Wikipedia definition and trust that you’ll follow it?
You then said maximizing rights and freedoms of the individual, and minimize the size of the state.
The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough? Some see States in modern Western nations as small, not intervening as much in personal matters compared to the 3rd world, and they offer many freedoms in comparison. But some view them as too big. If you left that up to the reader to decide, then some will call the US small enough, at least in its internal politics.
And then which rights are necessary? Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school. Is the right to hate speech required? Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required? Who even decides and enforces that?
This is somewhat intentional. One should note that Libertarianism is not perfectly monolithic in its ideology – in that it does not outline a regimented doctrine which must be adhered to for one to have the privilege of calling themself a libertarian. Instead, I would argue that it outlines a set of shared values being that one recognizes the importance of the state, but also possesses the goal to minimize it to the extent that is realistically attainable, and also that one possesses the desire to equally maximize the rights and freedoms of themself, as well as their fellow citizenry. You will find no exact agreement between libertarians on many precise social issues. What you will instead find is a set of common shared ideals with which they base their opinions.
Liberalism, I would say, is where libertarianism inherits its desire for freedom. It outlines the philosophy that an individual should fundamentally posses a set of inalienable rights, e.g. right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, equality before the law, consent of the governed, right to the private ownership of property, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but to instead give an outline to how I define liberalism.
Minarchy, loosely speaking, is the desire to have a small state. Fundamentally, libertarianism will have the common denominator of a “Nightwatchmen State” in that the state should provide, at the very least, national protection through the military, and the enforcement of personal, and property rights through a police force and the judicial system.
I would argue that the minimization of the state is not necessarily a destination, but, instead, it is an aspiration. While you could say that “small enough” could be a pure Nightwatchmen State, I am very hesitant to do so, as it would be to assert that this is the ultimate, and perfect form of a minimal state, which I feel would be an arrogant statement to make.
Answering this with precision, and confidence carries the same sort of issues as that of answering “how small of a state is enough”? The world is unfortunately not perfect enough to be able to create such exact, and precise rules. We instead must state guidelines, frameworks, and principles from which we base our opinions, and legislation – we set our baseline, and determine on a case-by-case basis how laws fit in. One should be granted the rights to guarantee them maximal amount of freedom as can be realistically given so long as it does not infringe on the rights, and freedoms of others.
The right to freedom of religion is not the assertion that one must practice a religion, but freely have the choice between them. It is the right to choose to practice a religion. I’m not well acquainted with the laws, and politics of France, but to ban one’s religious wear is to infringe on their free practice of their religion.
I would encourage you to define that. I challenge you to come up with a definition that is not based in personal opinion. One should not have the right to not be offended.
These sorts of specific cases are usually left up to municipal bylaw, and tort law. A libertarian argument could be that no one should infringe on one’s private enjoyment their life without their consent. If one incurred damages for such non-consensual infringements, they should be properly compensated.
Tort law is typically enforced by civil courts.
Also there’s the fact that nearly everybody’s idea of freedom is drastically different and some people’s freedoms infringe on others.
Libertarianism seeks to maximise freedom.
Libertarianism does not, in any way, shape, or form, advocate the idea that one is able infringe on the rights, and freedoms of another without their consent. One should not be allowed to impart a cost on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.
What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?
Who’s freedoms do you infringe so the other one can have theirs?
These sorts of issues are examples of where we must accept that we live in an imperfect world, and, as such, we must make compromises. I completely agree that one should not be allowed to freely emit noise pollution, as it directly affects the livelihoods of all who are within earshot – imparting a psychological cost, one could say. It is not realistic to say that everyone must be completely quiet unless all parties affected have given their consent, and as such, we make reasonable limits based on context as to the amount of noise pollution that we can generate. These limits are most commonly implemented as municipal noise pollution bylaws.
One day day when you’re older, you’ll understand why that’ll never work.
You do realize that virtually every municipality in existence has noise bylaws, right?
I stand by what I’ve been saying.
Do you know hitting that disagree button is trying to silence my free speech?
What, specifically, are you trying to say?
On the contrary. If I hit the dislike button, I am actually making use of my free speech. The fact that you are able to say that you think I am silencing your free speech is proof that you still maintain your freedom of speech. Now, if I somehow had the ability to remove your comment (looking at you, mods), that would be silencing your free speech.
Why do you say this? There would exist a justice system to protect individual, and property rights through tort law, just as there is now.
I disagree with you.
You’re wrong.
Its like when someone uses human greed as a reason Communism wont work.
Funny how that someone is often the same who assumes humanity is flawless when libertarianism! Could it be that those people are just greedy and selfish hypocrites? Nah!
They’re pretty much similarly utopian but the neat thing is we can work towards both at the same time.
Which is a very uninformed (or intentionally misleading) thing to say, because Communism from it’s very beginning has always assumed that there are bad actors and always will be, hence the whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing.
That’s, to put it mildly, not what that phrase means.
What do you mean?
The idea (in theory) was that once the proleteriat seizes power, they would act akin to a dictator in ancient Rome, who would be given the extraordinary powers to handle extraordinary circumstances (such as, in this case, the (re)construction of society). It’s not implying totalitarian rule.
It’s also the state power to oppress counter revolutionaries and the former high class, often through violence and forced labour. That to me is a form of dictatorship, even if it does provide better conditions and freedom to much more people than the newly oppressed.
I’m not saying it to praise it or condemn it, I just think it’s a fact at this point.
deleted by creator
Communism wont work because it will never be implemented. If a country ever implements true communism it will experience extreme brain drain and be left with only the most unskilled people.
I’m not sure where you got this idea from. I’m not particularly informed on the subject, but when I look up the dictionary definition of communism, I get this:
Emphasis mine. If people with more ability are paid more, then they shouldn’t be flocking out of the country, right?
I believe you may be misinterpereting “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. It’s not about giving those with more ability more than those with less ability but instead to redistribute the fruits of labour, generated by those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
Why even work hard if you cant spend the money to own something/start a business. What will you spend the money on? The good of humanity? Get out of of here with that bullshit. If my country inplements communism im leaving on a first plane to a place where my skills will benefit me.
My understanding, however limited, is that “property” means something different in this context. Essentially, it means things like real estate and businesses, things that make money. You can own food, clothes, a TV, watches, a car, whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t make money.
If you wanted to start a business, you probably could, and you wouldn’t need to pay for it. The State would own the business, and you would be paid to run that business. This absolves you of all the risk associated with it, and you get paid more than a grocery store shelf stocker because you’re doing a harder job, and thus demonstrating greater ability.
So you’re dependant on the government and can’t (not allowed to) do anything about it. Sounds great. My car can make money, my computer can make money, but i guess im not allowed to do it if big daddy Lenin doesn’t want me to.
People who can will leave in flocks.
But that degrades a person to a child. A child can own a trinket or two, but for anything of real value, there’s mommy and daddy.
Which fits perfectly well with my hypothesis, that the majority of people actually don’t want a government. They want a babysitter to watch over them.
I hear Dubai is looking for day laborers! Im sure the lack of regulations make it a great place for workers!
There are places in the world other than commieland and dubai.
And yet, people are still coming there voluntarily. But that word is missing from the communist dictionary.
The will of a worker is nothing under the communism. It’s always about some abstract mythical collective.
“Communism won’t work because I only work for selfish gain so everyone else must be the same as me. Anyone who says they’d work for non-selfish reasons must be lying because I’m selfish and everyone else must be just like me. And if they set up a society where selfishness wasn’t the main motivator, I’d be out of there to go where I could still be selfish. Therefore communism is bullshit.”
Communist societies have had their problems but this has never been a good argument.
You underestimate how selfish an average human is
Of course you can. Why would you assume otherwise?
Oh, I see now…
By “own something”, you mean private property, don’t you? The freedom to extract rent is important to you, I’m guessing?
And by “start a business”, what you mean is “exploit people for profit”, am I right?
I mean agree with a person (not force them) that they can live on my property in exchange for money.
Also agree with someone (not force them) that they can work for me in exchange for money.
It’s ok comrade. Uninformed peoole often says so, but the braindrain in communism has been accouted for. A bit of a barbed wire, some dogs, a few guys with daddy issues and a gun will stop any brains crossing the border. /s
Would you mind outlining why you say that?
Libertarianism also works if there is information about bad people and good people are free to avoid them.
Freedom of information and freedom of action.
It’s easier to avoid bad people in free markets than it is to prevent them from taking and abusing positions of power in a powerful state.
Except freedom of information and freedom of action are two of the first things to die without regulation. Company towns and crooked newspapers are hallmarks of low-regulation.
It’s easier to vote bad people out of positions of power in a powerful state than it is to prevent them from abusing executive roles in powerful conglomerates.
Is it still libertarianism if those freedoms don’t exist anymore? I don’t think libertarians argue for no regulations.
Regarding the bad people, the trick is that bad people don’t look bad, much like captured markets offer the illusion of choice. So it’s difficult to vote them out.
The thing is that we argue different moments in development. You compare the correction of the corrupted states whereas I was talking about maintaining the functioning states.
It’s strictly speaking not libertarian, but libertarianism is a left wing ideology and the post is clearly referring to the right wing self-ascribed “libertarians” who do in fact argue against regulations roughly indiscriminately…
I never said it’s easy to vote them out, I said it’s easier than holding corrupt private executives accountable, for the same captured market illusion of choice reasons.
Don’t understand what you’re trying to say in the last part, don’t think your assessment really reflects my goals, sorry.
Sorry for the wrong assessment.
There can be rough “libertarians” but I think most don’t want to dismantle a libertarian state but instead want to create one. A lost opportunity where left and right could meet.
To me, the meme is not clearly right wing because the clown looks like the joker.
Let me shift the last part a bit. Corrupt executives are expected. That’s why freedom is important so that nobody is locked in with them. The same cannot be said for civil servants. As long as a party covers important topics, it can be corrupt in many other areas and voters cannot change anything.
I just don’t see the distinction. Without a government with actual regulatory teeth, those corrupt executives are just as liable to lock people in. Dismantling state power just gives those executives more opportunities to abuse their power. You can’t reduce government and expect private interests to not fill the vacuum. The concept that private executives with no voter accountability would be less corrupt than politicians is wholly ridiculous.
Those executives can also use the state for abuse. It’s easier to get tax money with one government contract than having to sell something to all citizens. Or remember those epi pens. Regulations can be used to massively increase profits.
The point of free markets is that executives can be corrupt. Instead of voting every 5 years, customers can immediately react and buy somewhere else.
You may be right that private interests don’t immediately fill up a government vacuum. With the internet, times may have changed and it could be easy for citizens to coordinate.
Love your praying with that last sentence.
It’s just like socialism; great concept, but impossible to perfectly implement. That said, I’d still prefer a system where I maintain independence and freedom than any alternative since humans are inherently are own largest problems.
I’d prefer a system similar to what we have in germany right now as it is a mix of socialism and capitalism in a way that reduces the exploitation that free market capitalism brings. Complete freedom in market almost always leads to exploitation which is terrible
How exactly does Germany reduce exploitation from capitalism? Is it labor laws? I would like to remind you that having social programs and laws that benefit the working class is not socialism.
Maybe saying socialist is an overstatement i just think that our current system is a step in the right direction as there are laws in place to reduce exploitation and improve the situation for workers. It is still very flawed and i think it could be better but there are many places where it is bad, the US for example
What, specifically, are you meaning when you use the term “capitalism”? There is a difference, for example, between an anarcho-capitalist, or fundamentally free market, and a competitive free market. One is alright with the existance of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour, and the other is not.
Would you mind defining “impossible to perfectly implement”? I don’t want to draw conclusions based on interperetations of that statement.
Respectfully, I think the opposite. I think, for the most part, a free® market naturally benefits humans with good intentions and harms those with bad intentions.
For example, let’s say in a free market, somebody wanted to start a business with horrible working conditions, horrible salary, horrible everything. Now, if the economy is real bad then people might work there, but for the most part, that business is going to fail because people won’t work there, and would choose other jobs instead. So in this case, a free market actually incentivizes “good intentions”. The business owner will have to improve work conditions, salary, etc. so that people will work there instead of elsewhere.
And one of the important aspects of a free market is the ability to start a competing business. If there was a company with overall poor working conditions and salary, it would highly incentivize someone to start a new company with better conditions, because they could pull in all the workers from the other company.
And look, I’m not saying this is fool proof and works 100% of the time, and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a healthy amount of regulation. But if you compare this to an economic system where businesses are run by the government, you can simply just be stuck with shitty work conditions and shitty salary, and not be able to do anything about it.
That’s fine to disagree. I used to believe this back when I took Econ classes in college, every Econ professor is a libertarian lmao. I just don’t think a free market would punish bad actors. Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap
The free market punishing bad actors (depending on how we are defining bad actors) is inherently dependent on the morals of the consumer.
The question would then become: “Whose morals are truly virtuous?”.
That only works when worker are less replaceable and desperate. Their are a lots of open job positions today but most pay less than the cost of living.
Lots of open job positions is very healthy for the economy, it gives the worker the ability to choose, and it makes companies have to compete. A ton of companies are literally being forced to increase their wages in order to get enough employees.
I’m not saying it’s unhealthly I am just saying they don’t help if they don’t pay above the cost of living. Sure you can get a job paying 15 USD but that isn’t even going to cover rent + utilities. So for now your stuck with your job and don’t have the option to switch.
My concern is that “bad product” to the consumer is mostly a matter of price and quality; environmental impact, legality, and even employee safety rank much lower with the average person as far as choosing where to spend their money. Companies can and do operate for years on the suffering of the lower class in particular, often openly doing so, and still make oodles of money.
Firstly, I think it completely aligns with libertarian principles to regulate environmental impact. If a company pollutes the airs and rivers, that physical affects everybody.
Secondly, yeah, it is sad that many consumers will turn a blind eye to poor working conditions and environmental impact … but I do think there is a limit. And honestly, most of the big companies in our nation are making some attempt to improve environmental conditions, probably because they know that some people will stop buying their product if they don’t. It’s not a lot, but I think the fact that it’s happening at all is some proof that companies can certainly be pressured into doing the right thing without legislation.
What I like about the free-ish markets is that it at least gives you a personal choice. If you don’t want to support a business, you don’t have to. It sucks if other people support it, but let’s be honest, if like 50% of the country wants to support a business that you don’t like, then what can you expect?
Pehaps, you may benefit from the term “competitive free market”.
That’s where operating it using Algocracy comes in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_by_algorithm
https://www.citydao.io/
Yeah the main lesson I’ve taken away from the last decade of cryptocurrency instability, NFTs, and things like algorithmically generated judicial sentencing guidelines that perpetuated the existing racial biases while making them seem more legitimate because “the computer can’t be wrong” is that we should run our whole society with them.
Sure.
Algocracy uses algorithms to inform societal decisions, while Blockchain is a transparent, decentralized ledger system. People often confuse cryptocurrencies with the underlying Blockchain technology, even though they serve different purposes.
Comparing the challenges of Algocracy to the volatility of cryptocurrencies is like assessing the potential of online commerce based on early internet connectivity issues.
Biases in Algocracy are the result of poor design. With meticulous design and continuous oversight, the potential of Algocracy can be fully realized.
You can’t design a neutral algorithm. The algorithm has to be designed to optimize something. What that thing is is a political and philosophical decision. Government by algorithm is indirect government by whoever’s values shaped the design of the algorithm.
Algorithms can no doubt assist in regulating systems but they don’t resolve any of the deeper political issues about values, goals and what constitutes improvement.
Of course, tech bros will claim they can sell you a neutral algorithm that will run things better than people, but that’s just because tech bros’ political philosophy is basically “just do it my way because obviously I’m smarter than you.” They won’t even notice how their algorithms are biased, because they’re not even interested in that question.
Yeah I might have oversimplified about ten steps there.
It’s an iterative process.
Tech bros 4 life.
they tryna put the government on Web3.0 crying laughing emoji skull emoji
Surely that citydao wasn’t created by someone with profit motives and not aware that in a few years it will be another worthless and abandoned NFT-bullshit.
deleted by creator