Current Topics
Public option vs Medicare for All
by Greger
02:45 AM
auto industry, unions and strikes
by chunkstyle
01:14 AM
What is a far leftist, anyway?
by perotista
12:19 AM
Where have all the conservatives gone?
by NW Ponderer
04:16 PM
The Impeachment of Donald trump
by NW Ponderer
03:53 PM
RoundTable for Fall 2019
by Jeffery J. Haas
10/19/19 06:36 PM
The Trump/Biden/Ukraine thing
by Greger
10/19/19 03:41 AM
What is "old"?
by Greger
10/19/19 03:03 AM
Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies
by pondering_it_all
10/19/19 02:26 AM
Hyper-partisanship and irrationality
by logtroll
10/19/19 12:47 AM
If ISIS does the unthinkable...
by chunkstyle
10/18/19 01:09 PM
Are both "sides" equally corrupt?
by chunkstyle
10/18/19 12:18 PM
The Departed - 2019
by pdx rick
10/17/19 01:12 PM
Why do humans fight so much?
by Greger
10/15/19 02:13 PM
Global warming predictions
by logtroll
10/13/19 08:47 PM
Turkey's Erdogan threatens to release millions of refugees into Europe over crit
by pdx rick
10/12/19 07:35 PM
Partisans' Trust in Legislative Branch Has Shifted in Past Year
by perotista
10/11/19 03:37 AM
Trump unleashes ISIS in Kurd Country
by Greger
10/10/19 05:31 PM
SF Board of Supervisors declare NRA a domestic terrorist organization
by NW Ponderer
10/09/19 03:08 PM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by chunkstyle
10/07/19 02:44 PM
Forum Stats
6282 Members
59 Forums
16715 Topics
290973 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 13 of 29 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 28 29 >
Topic Options
#111929 - 05/19/09 04:45 AM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: Phil Hoskins]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 12581
 Originally Posted By: Phil Hoskins
No matter how gradual the shift, it will never do more than kill and impoverish millions of people.

The system you currently support has already done that, Phil -- many times over, and it continues to do so. It is time for a change.
Yours,
Issodhos
_________________________
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos

Top
#111930 - 05/19/09 05:06 AM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: issodhos]
Phil Hoskins Offline
Administrator
Bionic Scribe

Registered: 06/07/04
Posts: 21134
Loc: West Hollywood, CA
Re: highways, issodhos, I take it you are going to repeal the 5th Amendment? Too collectivist for ya?
_________________________
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul

Top
#111932 - 05/19/09 05:46 AM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: issodhos]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17115
I am disappointed, Issodhos, but not surprised, that nothing you have responded with in your previous post is actually responsive to my post. I see assumptions, conjectures, excuses, and insults, but no substantive response. Let me be more explicit:
 Originally Posted By: Issodhos
That aside, your concern over libertarian thought not being a “governing” philosophy compared to the current master/slave system you currently support, NWP, could be clouding your objectivity.

Wow, in one sentence, a veritable treasure trove of fallacious argument (e.g., Nizkor Project - fallacies), misdirection (non-sequitur), aspersion (ad hominem), strawman... (See, 1, 13, 17, 23, 27, 41... impressive) - but I detect no substantive response. To which I respond: 1) I did not make a comparative claim (strawman/false dilemma); 2) There is nothing clouding my objectivity (ad hominem); 3) nor did I reference or subscribe to a "master/slave system" (non-sequitur/appeal to ridicule/false dilemma, etc., etc.)

I am interested in (and was discussing) effectiveness. I posited that nothing in "libertarianism" is effective - merely ephemeral. I still see nothing provided to rebut that, and I certainly appreciate the difficulty in doing so, as I reiterate - libertarianism is philosophically bereft of substance. I have no need to "get together with Phil" over my personal critique (which assertion appears to be a crude combination of ad hominem attack and guilt by association of some sort). I think I have provided plenty of specifics to which you could have responded but chose, instead to belittle, obfuscate, and elude rather than respond. Which leads to...

 Quote:
I will then decide how I choose to answer.
I never expected anything else. You can choose to answer or not, as I am free to critique whatever response is provided. I merely pointed out the lack of substance to the responses so far provided as indicative of the lack of substance to the underlying philosophy. As an approach, I opined that libertarianism is not prone to specificity, because individual problems - even relatively straightforward ones like roadways and hospitals - are too complex for the simplistic solutions that are "libertarian" in nature. My use of roadways and hospitals were merely specific exemplars demonstrating the point.

 Quote:
As to a government-caused need for the Department of Homeland Security, actions have consequences. When we play in other people’s back yard, they sometimes decide to come over and play in our back yard.
This is an amalgamation of causation fallacies. First, asserting that the DHS is "government caused," assuming without basis that there was no outside influence, asserting rather that it was only our "playing in other people's back yard" that inspired it, none of which is actually causally linked in any appreciable manner. This is followed by the leap to assert that a libertarian approach would be different because - "A libertarian-based foreign policy would be focused on cultural exchange and trade in line with a policy of not initiating aggression against others." Of course, that begs the question as to how that is unique from, for example, a liberal approach to foreign policy, or a traditionally conservative approach, or even an isolationist approach. Other than the Bush administration and other fascist-oriented (definitionally) regimes, aggression is not a hallmark of any other particular political philosophy.

 Quote:
As to the piffle about police, military, courts and such...
Piffle? I point out that the there is no effective way of engaging in these activities in a "libertarian" mode, and you deride that as piffle? AH, I understand.... because you have no substantive response, and prefer more ridicule to responsiveness?

Let me be succinct: I assert that libertarianism does not provide a practical solution to ordinary problems of human relations on either the micro (local governance) or macro (national governance) scale. I have provided specific examples of circumstances where I believe a libertarian approach can be demonstrated to be ineffective and impractical. I have yet to see identified a single example where that is not the case, ergo, libertarianism is an impracticable approach to human interaction/governance (outside of the formation of clubs). In short: It is a "nice idea" in theory, but has no practical application in the real world.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#111942 - 05/19/09 12:06 PM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: issodhos]
Schlack Offline
veteran

Registered: 07/22/04
Posts: 9718
Loc: Ireland
 Originally Posted By: issodhos
A libertarian solution would be based on property rights. The fishing area within the EU waters would be divided into specific sections and the commercial fishing rights to those sections would be auctioned at market price to fishermen.


Thanks for engaging on this level, i repeat the proviso that this is a thought experiment, meant purely to explore how a libertarian orientated socienty might work. wil all the health warnings a Hypo should have.


Interesting response, so the sea should be divided up and owned. I can see in theory how this might be done but this does raise a host of new queries.


Doesnt this go against the entire notion of the freedom of the seas? which i believe is an extremely strong tradition. I cant see fishhermen either supporting or it it came to fruition, respecting it. This would be asking fishermen to pay for something that they already have for free. How is such opposition to be overcome?

who then would decide upon the divisions? doesnt this process automatically favour the stronger, richer and squeeze out the "normal joe" fisherman into the crappier fishing grounds.

Who would benifit from the monies created from this water sale?

Does the process of division and sale not create a huge opportunity for corruption and graft on an even greater scale than exists today? I mean look at the size of the seas involved - the quantities of monies this would generate would be staggering.

It would involve the state selling off the sea which is something the fishermen already "own" in common.

Who indeed would police it? and how would this policing be funded. look at the area to be policed, by no means an easy or cheap task. I dont think we could rely upon the essential goodness of people to respect property rights can we? oh sure the big winners of the water sale would be able to fund a navy force, but even that would be far too small for the scale of sea. Oh and this would have the knock on effect of creating a huge temptation on the part of Big Fish to use their private navy to expand their sea patches (arrrr matey)

 Quote:

Using the inverse of Ardy’s commons analogy, if a fisherman knows that his and his family’s livelihood depends on not over-fishing his section and treating it in an environmentally safe manner, he will regulate his harvest so that reproducing stock are left for the next season. He may even compete with other fishermen to make his section more hospitable and attractive to the fish, especially if the fish he is after is a migrating species. Just as a farmer seeks to leave a family farm to his son in better condition than it was when his father left it to him (yeah, I know, most farmers are guys), so too would the owner of the right to fish a specific piece of the EU waters want to leave it to his son or daughter better than when he purchased it (yes it would be inheritable private property).


hmmmmm, the farmer analogy is interesting, shall we take a look at what beef farmers are doing in the ex-rainforest areas of south america, maximising the use of the land, overgrazing it, furthering the process of desertification begun by deforestation. They are in danger now of destroying the land that provides for them. Are they engaging in " treating it in an environmentally safe manner, he will regulate his harvest so that reproducing stock are left for the next season."? or with their maximised profits move on to another peice of available land.
why would fishermen act any differently unless forced?

This also brings up the policing aspect. there will be those who overfish and deplete stock in their patch. the temptation will always be there to stray intentionally or otherwise into anothers patch and destroy any good work that might have been done conservation wise.

I agree that the principle of leaving a sustainable fishing ground to be passed onto future generations would be a most excellent tradition to build, but as with now, i think the "bread today" principle would dominate.


 Quote:
I suspect we have more roads than we need, but, if someone wishes to have a road built to connect to a commercial, social, or other development site he will have to decide how much the road is worth and make his offer accordingly. If someone along the way does not want to sell her property at what he is offering, she will probably sell at a higher price. If not, or if her price is too steep his choice is to go around her or cancel the project. One less piece of the environment not paved over.:-)


so, no road built then. no matter how neccessary. okie dokie, at least thats clear.

(i do agree that we probably have too many roads - bring on the flying car!)

 Quote:
That would be mistaking a free market for a perfect market, Schlack.


again thanks for the clarity. well i think I can say i can accept a much more imperfect market than you. given the imperfections of man, probably more apprpriate!
_________________________
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)


Top
#111944 - 05/19/09 01:19 PM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: issodhos]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14332
Loc: Whittier, California
 Originally Posted By: issodhos
Using the inverse of Ardy’s commons analogy, if a fisherman knows that his and his family’s livelihood depends on not over-fishing his section and treating it in an environmentally safe manner, he will regulate his harvest so that reproducing stock are left for the next season. He may even compete with other fishermen to make his section more hospitable and attractive to the fish, especially if the fish he is after is a migrating species.


--The above almost NEVER happens in modernized culture, and almost never happens even in the most idyllic of aboriginal cultures either, regardless of what political, philosophical or religious system it is governed by.
The lessons of Easter Island point to mankind's inability to properly husband his resources without regulation.

Libertarian epic fail.
_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#111953 - 05/19/09 02:53 PM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: Schlack]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17115
When I woke up this morning, I was feeling some guilt over venting my frustration in my last post and to make up for it, thought I had hit upon an example of successful libertarian enterprise to offer up - the toll road! Many early turnpikes and bridges were developed by private companies, which is a libertarian kind of concept, isn't it? Then, of course, as I started to research the topic, I discovered I was wrong. <sigh> Turns out they were all government-instituted monopolies...

Schlack's dissection of the fishing industry example turns out to be historically harmonic to the turnpike situation. The problem, I discovered, is that most such enterprises start with a governing authority granting a monopoly (large or small) by fiat. The concept of property rights, so central to libertarian thought, turns out to rest upon the creation of a "state" entity (with the coercive aspects inherent therein), which can then dictate the terms of such "ownership." In the absence of any kind of governing (coercive) authority, as exists in the open seas, each individual is free to take however many fish he wants, subject only to the existence of the fishery. This will continue until the fish stocks are depleted entirely. Schlack's discussion also brought me full-circle to the first response and Checkerboard's reference to Somalia...

If you think about it, the problem off Somalia is libertarianism in a microcosm. Here you have the "free market" at work. Pirates Entrepreneurs in Somalia have identified a means of making money and they are exploiting the local resource (Gulf of Aden) to get ransom money profits (call it a toll) from shippers transiting their locality. Shippers are willing to pay (willing buyers) to the Somali pirates entrepreneurs (willing sellers) for the privilege of using the waterway. Shippers have a choice - they can arm their ships and make it more difficult for the pirates entrepreneurs, but then the cost of ransom the toll will go up; they can ship further away and avoid the Gulf of Aden, but that will add to the expense of shipping, and, after all, only a small percentage of their shipping is subject to this free-lance toll process. This is pure libertarian market economics.

Anyone see any flaws in this example?
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#111954 - 05/19/09 02:57 PM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: Jeffery J. Haas]
Ardy Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/22/05
Posts: 12007
Loc: San Jose, Ca USA
 Originally Posted By: Checkerboard Strangler
 Originally Posted By: issodhos
Using the inverse of Ardy’s commons analogy, if a fisherman knows that his and his family’s livelihood depends on not over-fishing his section and treating it in an environmentally safe manner, he will regulate his harvest so that reproducing stock are left for the next season. He may even compete with other fishermen to make his section more hospitable and attractive to the fish, especially if the fish he is after is a migrating species.


--The above almost NEVER happens in modernized culture, and almost never happens even in the most idyllic of aboriginal cultures either, regardless of what political, philosophical or religious system it is governed by.
The lessons of Easter Island point to mankind's inability to properly husband his resources without regulation.

Libertarian epic fail.


And.... the reality is that fish swim. If other fisherman do not have the same management practices, then all the fish will be gone for everyone.

This dynamic can be clearly seen in the enormous industrial fishing operations that are operated in the ocean. These ship drag giant nets that capture an kill everything. It works well for each ship.... but the practice is destroying the fishery.

Further example... lets say for purpose of discussion that there is in fact a problem that results from increasing atmospheric carbon gasses. Then there is no alternative other than to come to some arrangement where everyone addresses the problem. There is no way we can "own" the atmosphere over our own country and be indifferent to the atmosphere in the world at large.
_________________________
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel

Top
#111964 - 05/19/09 04:21 PM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: ]
Schlack Offline
veteran

Registered: 07/22/04
Posts: 9718
Loc: Ireland
 Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
If you think about it, the problem off Somalia is libertarianism in a microcosm. Here you have the "free market" at work. Pirates Entrepreneurs in Somalia have identified a means of making money and they are exploiting the local resource (Gulf of Aden) to get ransom money profits (call it a toll) from shippers transiting their locality. Shippers are willing to pay (willing buyers) to the Somali pirates entrepreneurs (willing sellers) for the privilege of using the waterway. Shippers have a choice - they can arm their ships and make it more difficult for the pirates entrepreneurs, but then the cost of ransom the toll will go up; they can ship further away and avoid the Gulf of Aden, but that will add to the expense of shipping, and, after all, only a small percentage of their shipping is subject to this free-lance toll process. This is pure libertarian market economics.

Anyone see any flaws in this example?


Interestingly a lot of the pirates were originally fishermen who were fished out of a livlihood by large fishing companies, as somlaia was unable to defend its territorial waters and fishing grounds.

But i do see a problem using somalia as an example of ibertarianism in action. from what ive read from Isshodos, that there is agreement on the principles through which freedom of action is limited and limited though laws.

however Somalia is an anarchic laweless hell hole, pretty far from the ideal (sorry Isshodos) libertarian orientated society described.

Its the lack of laws and agreement i think are the main difference.

what the reality or consequences of libertarian orientated society would be is actually anyones guess. I share many peoples suspicions that it would be unworkable or would end up a Dickensian nightmare.

I share the suspicion that it could descend into a somalia (mad max) like situation, but then again germany was a democracy before it descended into madness.

I feel that libertarianism in itself holds enough contradictions and is based on too many assumptions to be able to argue against it comprehensively and successfully without smearing it with Somalia.

to me it smacks of rovian tactics*.


* now hows THAT for a backhanded smear?
_________________________
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)


Top
#111984 - 05/19/09 08:26 PM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: Schlack]
numan Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/06/08
Posts: 10853
Loc: What! Me Worry?
 Originally Posted By: Issodhos

That aside, your concern over libertarian thought not being a “governing” philosophy compared to the current master/slave system you currently support, NWP, could be clouding your objectivity.



 Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer

Wow, in one sentence, a veritable treasure trove of fallacious argument (e.g., Nizkor Project - fallacies), misdirection (non-sequitur), aspersion (ad hominem), strawman... (See, 1, 13, 17, 23, 27, 41... impressive) - but I detect no substantive response. To which I respond: 1) I did not make a comparative claim (strawman/false dilemma); 2) There is nothing clouding my objectivity (ad hominem); 3) nor did I reference or subscribe to a "master/slave system" (non-sequitur/appeal to ridicule/false dilemma, etc., etc.)



 Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer

If you think about it, the problem off Somalia is libertarianism in a microcosm. Here you have the "free market" at work. Pirates Entrepreneurs in Somalia have identified a means of making money and they are exploiting the local resource (Gulf of Aden) to get ransom money profits (call it a toll) from shippers transiting their locality. Shippers are willing to pay (willing buyers) to the Somali pirates entrepreneurs (willing sellers) for the privilege of using the waterway. Shippers have a choice - they can arm their ships and make it more difficult for the pirates entrepreneurs, but then the cost of ransom the toll will go up; they can ship further away and avoid the Gulf of Aden, but that will add to the expense of shipping, and, after all, only a small percentage of their shipping is subject to this free-lance toll process. This is pure libertarian market economics.

Anyone see any flaws in this example?





WELL DONE, NWP!

YOU ARE IN GOOD FORM!


 Originally Posted By: Schlack

Interestingly a lot of the pirates were originally fishermen who were fished out of a livlihood by large fishing companies, as somlaia was unable to defend its territorial waters and fishing grounds.

But i do see a problem using somalia as an example of ibertarianism in action. from what ive read from Isshodos, that there is agreement on the principles through which freedom of action is limited and limited though laws.

however Somalia is an anarchic laweless hell hole, pretty far from the ideal (sorry Isshodos) libertarian orientated society described.

Its the lack of laws and agreement i think are the main difference.

what the reality or consequences of libertarian orientated society would be is actually anyones guess. I share many peoples suspicions that it would be unworkable or would end up a Dickensian nightmare.

I share the suspicion that it could descend into a somalia (mad max) like situation....



It is inevitable that this Libertarian fantasy would descend into chaos.

Where in the world does Issodhos get the strange idea that people obey laws --- unless they are forced to?

And who, in the Cloud-Cuckooland of Libertarianism, is to enforce the laws? Obviously, they would be the people with the guns and the money!

Sound familiar?

Libertarianism might work if human beings were not the irrational, obsessive, short-sighted creatures that they are. They would need to be cool, clear-witted, maximizers of economic benefit for themselves, yet they would need to have enough social consciousness and identification with long-term goals to be able to keep an orderly society from breaking down.

It is superfluous to note that such paragons of humanity could make almost any political system flourish!

Indeed, the perfect humanity necessary to Libertarianism vaguely reminds me of another utopian ideal --- the "New Socialist Man" of the Communist paradise of Marx and Engels! ;\)

 Originally Posted By: Issodhos

A libertarian solution would be based on property rights.



Perhaps this is the core of the Libertarian fallacy. It is just a variation on the old shell-game of those with money and property --- BIG money and property!

In the Real World, there is a lot more to human society, and individual human life; but Libertarians are simple-minded folk, with simple-minded ideas, and their ideas about property are a hive of bees swarming in their bonnets, through whose buzzing confusion they cannot manage to see the world as it is.


Edited by numan (05/19/09 08:35 PM)
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools -- Herbert Spencer

Top
#111990 - 05/19/09 09:06 PM Re: Libertarianism Makes You Stupid [Re: numan]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 8783
Loc: North San Diego County
Libertarianism comes in 31 different flavors, all starting with the basic idea that coercion is bad, especially if it is coercion by government. But after all, who doesn't think coercion is bad, especially if they are the one being coerced?

Beyond that single point of agreement, "Libertarians" go off in all political, social, and economic directions. Almost everything from Religion, to Communism, to Anarchy can be added over the basic "non-coercion" idea to yield yet another school of Libertarian Thought. And since all of them ignore the sordid fact that most humans need a little coercion so they don't crap where others eat, they are all unworkable.

Remember, we all start out as anarchists (as infants) and most of us get sufficiently "housebroken" so we become responsible adults. Even in the most liberal parent-child relationships, that process includes LOADS of coercion. And plenty of us never do become responsible adults, so the world also includes sociopaths, con-men, thieves, corporate CEOs, etc. who don't follow the internal rules for transparent and fair interactions that all would need in a Libertarian system.

You just can't get there from here, and even if you could it would be so unstable that it would revert back to a coercive system very quickly.

Top
Page 13 of 29 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 28 29 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 33 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Snarky_Politics, Moot, Ikari, perotista, ttwtt78640
6282 Registered Users
A2