If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The question libertarians just can't answer   (salon.com) divider line 611
    More: Obvious, members of the United Nations, industrial society, advanced countries, political philosophy, infant mortality, open borders, Fraser Institute, economic freedom  
•       •       •

9966 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jun 2013 at 4:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



611 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-05 07:14:41 PM

tirob: Phinn: and freedom of contract (Lochner)
.

Too often interpreted by those who hide behind it as a license to screw over other people, which I am convinced is the "right" that "libertarians" value the most.  Lochner himself, after all, got caught working his bakery employees over sixty hours a week.


I work more than 60 hours most weeks.
 
2013-06-05 07:26:51 PM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: I never said "the Feds shouldn't have changed state law."

Give the strawman a break. He's a goner.

But you haven't committed to the position the Feds SHOULD have.

Libertarianism stands in favor of any means that promotes free association.

Forced racial integration was anti-libertarian, and stems from the same hideous mindset that gave us forced racial segregation.

Many states also had anti-miscegenation laws in place, too, once upon a time. They are an affront to all free people. An equally illegitimate use of force would be for the State to be involved in the process of selecting our sexual partners for us, and prohibiting racial discrimination in marriage. It's obvious to most people that free association should be the operative principle in mate selection.

If you can understand this in the context of marriage, why do you have such a brain glitch when it comes to other areas of social life. Freedom works. Stop being such a control freak.

You still haven't answered the question. Should the federal government have intervened?

The federal government DID intervene! It ruled in Brown v. The Bd. of Education that the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson was no longer enforceable. That's good. Plessy was wrong.

That was the right way to keep going -- extend that decision to invalidate all mandatory-segregation laws. Plessy was a mandatory-segregation case (streetcars, I think). It took a while for mandatory-segregation laws to be invalidated after Brown. Some were still around in the 1960s when the Civil Rights Act was enacted, which prohibited discrimination. Therefore, there was NO TIME when government respected free association.

It is therefore impossible to blame the freedom of association for the existence of racism in those industries, when such freedom never substantially existed.


So Rand Paul and other "Libertarians" were talking out their ass when they said the federal government should not have gotten involved because the Free Market would fix it. (And that's all before we examine that claim to begin with.)
 
2013-06-05 07:27:37 PM

RanDomino: vygramul
Oh, and Communist theory is explicitly stateless without an enforcement agency. You can have communism with two people just fine.

Marxist utopian Communism, you mean?


Is there another kind?
 
2013-06-05 07:30:47 PM

BojanglesPaladin: vygramul: And so you see why you need government or you can't have capitalism.

No I don't. Because government is not necessary for capitalism. All you need is more than one party willing to exchange goods or services for goods or services. Capitalism certainly thrives in an ordered society under the rule of law, and for THAT you need an enforcement agency.


Capitalism can exist inasmuch two individuals can make a voluntary trade. But most systems fall under that rubric of two people voluntarily engaging in a particular economic system. That's why you can have two people be communist. One guy makes spears, the other guy hunts, and when the hunter needs a spear he goes and gets one, and when the guy making spears gets hungry, he does and gets some venison. No barter, no exchange, just creation of goods with people taking them as they need them.
 
2013-06-05 08:42:16 PM
tirob
But even that one was only effective because of the personality of the man who was generally acknowledged as its driving force. I'd never call Durruti a warlord--he got things done by persuasion, not by force--but the FAI militia (and Spanish Anarchism generally) was never the same after his death.

Eh, in all honesty the FAI was never the same after they let the bourgeoisie Republican government survive the July 1936 revolution. Or when they spent years working with the CNT but failed to acknowledge that, as far as the vast majority of its members were concerned, it was nothing more than a labor union. Still, they got a lot right, even if they got a lot wrong.


BojanglesPaladin
All you need is more than one party willing to exchange goods or services for goods or services.

That's still not capitalism.


vygramul
Is there another kind?

Lately the Insurrectionists are using slogans calling for "Full Communism" by which they mean something different, or at least I think so from what I can translate from their stupid and incomprehensible French Postmodernist Asshole gibberish communiques.
 
2013-06-05 08:58:27 PM

RanDomino: vygramul
Is there another kind?

Lately the Insurrectionists are using slogans calling for "Full Communism" by which they mean something different, or at least I think so from what I can translate from their stupid and incomprehensible French Postmodernist Asshole gibberish communiques.


No, that's idiots who think that, "we've never tried Communism," rather than because there's a different sort.
 
2013-06-05 09:21:34 PM

Phinn: tirob: Phinn: and freedom of contract (Lochner)
.

Too often interpreted by those who hide behind it as a license to screw over other people, which I am convinced is the "right" that "libertarians" value the most.  Lochner himself, after all, got caught working his bakery employees over sixty hours a week.

I work more than 60 hours most weeks.


In a hot bakery with flour dust flying around?

RanDomino: tirob
But even that one was only effective because of the personality of the man who was generally acknowledged as its driving force. I'd never call Durruti a warlord--he got things done by persuasion, not by force--but the FAI militia (and Spanish Anarchism generally) was never the same after his death.

Eh, in all honesty the FAI was never the same after they let the bourgeoisie Republican government survive the July 1936 revolution. Or when they spent years working with the CNT but failed to acknowledge that, as far as the vast majority of its members were concerned, it was nothing more than a labor union. Still, they got a lot right, even if they got a lot wrong.
.


The FAI was vigorous in the early months of the resistance to the military coup.  I'm usually not one to give a lot of credit to Anarchists, as you know, but I think that the FAI militia deserves a lot of the credit for crushing the coup in Barcelona.  But even Anarchists acknowledged that they would have been cut to bits if the police forces of the bourgeois state, as you call it, had gone over to the military.  In Barcelona, not only the cops but the Guardia Civil stayed loyal to the Republican authorities.  I still believe that Durruti's death deprived the Anarchists of their best organizer and left them deflated.  I also still recommend in this context that you have a look at Ronald Fraser's book, Blood of Spain.
 
2013-06-05 10:09:35 PM
tirob
I still believe that Durruti's death deprived the Anarchists of their best organizer and left them deflated.

I feel like somewhere in a forgotten cabinet in the basement of the NKVD headquarters there's a copy of his assassination order.
 
2013-06-05 10:11:15 PM

tirob: Phinn: tirob: Phinn: and freedom of contract (Lochner)
.

Too often interpreted by those who hide behind it as a license to screw over other people, which I am convinced is the "right" that "libertarians" value the most.  Lochner himself, after all, got caught working his bakery employees over sixty hours a week.

I work more than 60 hours most weeks.

In a hot bakery with flour dust flying around?


No, see -- if he's willing to do something, that means everyone should be. Liberty and all.
 
2013-06-05 11:44:58 PM

gameshowhost: tirob: Phinn: tirob: Phinn: and freedom of contract (Lochner)
.
Too often interpreted by those who hide behind it as a license to screw over other people, which I am convinced is the "right" that "libertarians" value the most.  Lochner himself, after all, got caught working his bakery employees over sixty hours a week.

I work more than 60 hours most weeks.

In a hot bakery with flour dust flying around?

No, see -- if he's willing to do something, that means everyone should be. Liberty and all.



Actually, the law in Lochner was just another union protectionist scheme -- see, there were too many dirty foreigners (let's call them "more-recent immigrants") who were willing to work harder at the same jobs held by the pre-existing population, and so the people in power (let's call them "the establishment" or better yet "the oppressors") decided to use the government's power (let's call it "the police" or better yet "the overseers' whip-crackers") to neutralize the only competitive advantage that poor more-recent immigrants had.

Lock out The Other.  So brave.  So noble.

Hey, I wonder how many of those more-recent immigrants and/or their families starved to death for lack of gainful employment opportunities.

But I'm sure they died smiling, safe in the knowledge that some neo-Progressive half-assed sloppy thinkers a hundred years later would make a career out of congratulating themselves for caring so gosh-darned much about the plight of others.
 
2013-06-06 12:15:04 AM
Somehow, i just knew I'd find this here, so I'm going to let Tom Woods have his say:
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-question-libertarians-just-cant-ans we r/#.Ua5EvIZST-E.email
For some reason, the finger-waggers at Salon think they've got us stumped with
So this is the unanswerable question? What's supposed to be so hard about it? Ninety percent of what libertarians write about answers it at least implicitly.
Let's reword the question slightly, in order to draw out the answer. You'll note that when stated correctly, the question contains an implicit non sequitur.
(1) "If your approach is so great, why doesn't local law enforcement want to give up the money, supplies, and authority that come from the drug war?"
(2) "If your approach is so great, why don't big financial firms prefer to stand or fall on their merits, and prefer bailouts instead?"
(3) "If your approach is so great, why do people prefer to earn a living by means of special privilege instead of by honest production?"
(4) "If your approach is so great, why does the military-industrial complex prefer its revolving-door arrangement and its present strategy of fleecing the taxpayers via its dual strategy of
(5) "If your approach is so great, why do businessmen often prefer subsidies and special privileges?"
(6) "If your approach is so great, why do some people prefer to achieve their ends through war instead?"
(7) "If your approach is so great, why does the political class prefer to live off the labor of others, and exercise vast power over everyone else?"
(8) "Special interests win special benefits for themselves because those benefits are concentrated and significant. The costs, dispersed among the general public, are so insignificant to any particular person, that the general public has no vested interest in organizing against it. An extra 25 cents per gallon of orange juice is hardly worth devoting one's life to opposing, but an extra $100 million per year in profits for the companies involved sure is worth the time to lobby for.
"If your approach is so great, why does this happen?"
(9) "If your approach is so great, why don't people want to try it out, after having been propagandized against it nonstop for 17 years?" (K-12, then four years of college.)


Now I'm going to have another beer(a craft beer that was made possible by federal deregulation) and go to bed because I have a private sector job to go to in morning.  Goodnight.
 
Displayed 11 of 611 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report