Libertarianism as the an immoral system

[JDuff]

This is a very simplistic picture of what I think is wrong with libertarianism! I know it is hypothetical and somewhat vague, but perhaps it has some interesting aspects.

---


Libertarianism - if property is acquired justly, and transferred justly, then nobody has a right to take it away from you.

Problems - almost all land has not been acquired justly, it has been acquired through conquest or unjust actions, favouritism and corruption. So we need to rectify. But we cannot go back through history and trace all that has happened and compensate. So we either legitimise unjust conquest and exploitation, or we enact a rough principle of rectification. A possible principle is helping the disadvantaged. But libertarians simply ignore this.

Libertarians who do not propose compensation for the inequalities that have unjustly been brought about, not only legitimise the unjust use of force to take what others have (see above); they also seek subsequently to protect that illegitimate property through force. So it is in effect, the protection of the strong from the weak, and the protection of the oppressors from the oppressed.

Obviously, libertarianism leads to ever increasing inequality. People who have property keep it amongst themselves and their families. The majority of people have to work for whatever is offered (which will be as low as possible without regulation).

Libertarians believe in freedom and self-ownership. But it is a formal, hollow freedom. If you have to work 12 hours a day to put food on the table, because you are unfortunate enough to be born amongst one of the working-class, rather than the property owning class, then really you are not free at all. You are free to, in effect, be a slave.

The foundation of self-ownership in Libertarianism is that you own your body, and thereby the things you mix your labour with if you increase value. On this account, if I make 200 t-shirts a day, surely I own them? Nope, the person you work for owns them, and you had the "freedom" to work for them or starve. In which case, other people own your labour, and as an extension of libertarian principles, your body. So rather than taxation being slavery, having to work for others in a world where private property has covered the land and where there is no redistribution, is a very real form of slavery.

The only time when this is not reality is at the beginning, when the land is unowned. In which case, people run around fencing off the world, attacking each other and killing to get other bits of land etc. Then we make a rule - protect the property (the property-owners make this rule), and it is enforced successfully once they get enough power. From that moment on, libertarianism = slavery for the vast majority of people, unless human nature can, by nature of sympathy and benevolence, affect the sentiments of the elites to give some to the poor. This will happen sometimes, but not enough to get a situation that is anywhere near as good as would happen from forced redistribution.

The solution is that the poor rise up and overthrow the elites, and a very hellish picture of civil disobedience and civil war can be pictured. So libertarianism also tends itself to state oppression and suppression of dissenters through force. After all, if they are trying to infringe on your vast property rights then force is justified.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by JDuff

This will happen sometimes, but not enough to get a situation that is anywhere near as good as would happen from forced redistribution.

The solution is that the poor rise up and overthrow the elites, and a very hellish picture of civil disobedience and civil war can be pictured. So libertarianism also tends itself to state oppression and suppression of dissenters through force. After all, if they are trying to infringe on your vast property rights then force is justified.

Care to share some historical examples that illustrate your point. What are some examples of forced redistribution being more equitable to the populace at large and has a better outcome for the majority of the populace.

[Peterw]

Libertarians believe in freedom and self-ownership. But it is a formal, hollow freedom. If you have to work 12 hours a day to put food on the table, because you are unfortunate enough to be born amongst one of the working-class, rather than the property owning class, then really you are not free at all. You are free to, in effect, be a slave.

Can you explain this one a bit more?

We see the world through very different eyes

[James Fletcher]

Forced equality is an oxymoron. The enforcer holds more power than the enforced. In order for the enforcer to continue in their role, they must be compensated in a way that insures that they are unaffected by various adversities. Hence why during the Cold War in the Eastern Bloc, a career as a representative of the Communist Party promised affluence and freedom from poverty.

A more honest way of putting it would be forced mediocrity. Stigmatizing prosperity and its rewards. Treating exceptional ability with suspicion of a conspiracy to gain more than one's fair share.

People who have property keep it amongst themselves and their families.

The good of the many outweighing the good of the few may sound just in principle, but in reality the few cannot possibly carry the burden of the needs of the many.

[Mariana Trench]

I don't have the time to thoughtfully take apart your OP, but suffice it to say it has flaws and good points in my mind. I still think libertarianism deserves critiquing and this is a good FAQ for that: The Anti-Libertarian FAQ (or, Why I Hate Your Freedom)

Also not perfect, but well worth a read. I should mention another forum member, Micheal Chui, shared it with me. Here's an excerpt:


"To many people, libertarianism means the belief that over-regulation is a greater danger than under-regulation and therefore the burden of proof is on anyone who thinks a problem can be solved with more regulations. I agree with this form of libertarianism one hundred percent, and if that is how you define the philosophy, I am a libertarian.

"But to other people, libertarianism means that politics must be seen solely as a cosmic battle between the State and the Individual, and that the only solution to this dichotomy is to oppose the State in all its actions. That any concession to “statism” is a betrayal of humanity liable to end in Soviet communism or worse, and that proposed regulation can be immediately dismissed as either a plot to seize power for the dark forces of Statism or as the idiotic fantasies of bleeding-hearts with no grasp on reality.

"If you are the first form of libertarian, you will probably agree with many things in this FAQ, and find other things so simplistic as to completely fail to address your strongest arguments. If you are the second form of libertarian, this FAQ is aimed at you."

[taylor]

Libertarianism isn't immoral, it's amoral.

With freedom one can be good or bad depending on one's personal wishes.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Forced equality is an oxymoron. The enforcer holds more power than the enforced. In order for the enforcer to continue in their role, they must be compensated in a way that insures that they are unaffected by various adversities. Hence why during the Cold War in the Eastern Bloc, a career as a representative of the Communist Party promised affluence and freedom from poverty.

A more honest way of putting it would be forced mediocrity. Stigmatizing prosperity and its rewards. Treating exceptional ability with suspicion of a conspiracy to gain more than one's fair share.



The good of the many outweighing the good of the few may sound just in principle, but in reality the few cannot possibly carry the burden of the needs of the many.

Yep. In Russia, my dad had intelligence and skills, and fixed watches on the side. We couldn't buy a car, because the people around us couldn't afford a car, and buying a car, would draw suspicion towards us, that we had more then our " fair share".

The whole point of what you describe, is to get to communism. For communism to work, you have to have socialism, and the few powerful people need to take control of everything, and spread it out equally. BUT, they are supposed to give up that power once it's all said and done. Socialism, always has powerful people, in control of everyone else, and rarely does the populous get to decide what is actually good for them, vs what the powerful people think is good for them.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Yep. In Russia, my dad had intelligence and skills, and fixed watches on the side. We couldn't buy a car, because the people around us couldn't afford a car, and buying a car, would draw suspicion towards us, that we had more then our " fair share".

The whole point of what you describe, is to get to communism. For communism to work, you have to have socialism, and the few powerful people need to take control of everything, and spread it out equally. BUT, they are supposed to give up that power once it's all said and done. Socialism, always has powerful people, in control of everyone else, and rarely does the populous get to decide what is actually good for them, vs what the powerful people think is good for them.

Sounds more like fascism than freedom or equality.

Instead of contending with greed you must contend with peoples envy.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Sounds more like fascism than freedom or equality.

Instead of contending with greed you must contend with peoples envy.

Nope, Fascism is something entirely different all together. What I described is Socialism with the goal of Communism.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Nope, Fascism is something entirely different all together. What I described is Socialism with the goal of Communism.

Yes, and in the Socialism you describe on the way to communism, it sounds like control freaks keeping the masses under their thumb. Nazism then?

I think there are some fine ideals in Socialism, but in the end it's not realistic and it's never worked, so why do people still insist it should be taken seriously?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Yes, and in the Socialism you describe on the way to communism, it sounds like control freaks keeping the masses under their thumb. Nazism them?

I think there are some fine ideals in Socialism, but in the end it's not realistic and it's never worked, so why do people still insist it should be taken seriously?

Because they all think, that everyone who has tried it, did it wrong, and they can do it better, and anyone who is doing it now, just needs a little more time to make the system work cleanly. Then, you have a vast majority of people, that claim it CURRENTLY works.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Because they all think, that everyone who has tried it, did it wrong, and they can do it better, and anyone who is doing it now, just needs a little more time to make the system work cleanly. Then, you have a vast majority of people, that claim it CURRENTLY works.

If humans ever evolved to the point where they could handle positions of power without their egos going awol, then it might have a chance. It hasn't happened in the entire history of mankind though, so I hope they have eternal patience.

[Double]

"almost all land has not been acquired justly, it has been acquired through conquest or unjust actions, favouritism and corruption."

That was governments

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by taylor

Libertarianism isn't immoral, it's amoral.

With freedom one can be good or bad depending on one's personal wishes.

Libertarianism destroys freedom, actually. It takes an Aristotelian mean ( Aristotle's Virtues, Means | Golden Mean ) and turns it into a dichotomy. Private property is necessary for freedom, but it is also precisely what restricts freedom. Lack of private property (the vice of deficiency) makes it impossible for the individual to gang his own gait. Too much private property (the vice of excess) makes it equally impossible, because the existing property cannot be redistributed to our ever-increasing population in order to allow them to exercise their freedom.

Libertarianism takes this simple concept and says, "Too hard! Let's make it simpler: Property versus the State! Freedom versus Authority!" In its fear of deficiencies in private property, it runs screaming to the other extreme: an excess of private property. In the name of expanding freedoms, it restricts freedoms.

The golden mean here is self-control, on a societal scale. That's what regulation is: a society's way of saying, "Alright, we can indulge ourselves up until here and then we should stop."

Those libertarians who are sober believe that we can achieve this through market dynamics. They believe that, if we keep drinking beers, somehow we'll "just know" that we're about to become too drunk and stop. They dismiss alcoholics as non-existent or losers worth shooting in the head. Governmental regulation, on the other hand, is about the bartender saying, "Look. You've had a lot tonight. I think you should stop."

[taylor]

Never cared for the work of Aristotle. He seems to just pick his concepts out of the sky and then claim they are absolute truth. Not going to read anymore of his if I can help it.

Understand something: societal institutions whether government or corporations are just concepts.

If you ignore people's rhetoric you'll find that people are acquiring power whether through force and law (government) or beneficial trade (corporation).

Power itself is neutral.

Corporations tend to use their power to keep producing whatever widget in an effort to get even more power.
Governments tend to use their power to keep producing whatever laws in an effort to get even more power.

Corporations tend to be a little nicer to its subjects because trade requires voluntary action and agreement of terms.
Governments don't have to try as hard to be nice because ultimately all the voluntary voting-like behavior is just to keep the populace sedated rather than having to have any agreement about authority. You can choose A or B to rule over you rather than choosing whether or not someone rule over you.

Corporations do wreck greater damage on the environment though through hidden costs to the consumer and tragedy of the commons issues so it's a trade off.

I don't know about all this freedom and private property business. Sounds confused. My experiences with communally owned property heavily supports the Libertarian position. When someone is telling you what you can and can't do on property with the threat of force (Governments) I don't see that as free.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by taylor

Corporations tend to use their power to keep producing whatever widget in an effort to get even more power.
Governments tend to use their power to keep producing whatever laws in an effort to get even more power.

Corporations tend to be a little nicer to its subjects because trade requires voluntary action and agreement of terms.
Governments don't have to try as hard to be nice because ultimately all the voluntary voting-like behavior is just to keep the populace sedated rather than having to have any agreement about authority. You can choose A or B to rule over you rather than choosing whether or not someone rule over you.

Corporations do wreck greater damage on the environment though through hidden costs to the consumer and tragedy of the commons issues so it's a trade off.

I don't know about all this freedom and private property business. Sounds confused. My experiences with communally owned property heavily supports the Libertarian position.

Communally owned property is what public property is. Choosing the government, in a democracy, means taking responsibility yourself. Every democratic citizen is a governor. That's what democracy means. Choosing a corporation means giving that responsibility to someone else. It means handing over your ability to make decisions to an opaque organization whose sole interest in you is your capacity to fork over cash.

Yes, many democracies are not working properly. The libertarian position is that because of this, we should throw out the concept. They're not interested in, say, minimizing corporate influence so that the democracies start working better. Or modifying the electoral process to better represent the public's interests. Or figuring out how to increase dialogue to make for a more conversant society willing to cooperate towards a better future, rather than compete in the name of accidentally innovating our way there.

If you believe that it is impossible for voting to properly represent interests, then I can see why you would hand over your power to a corporation. That kind of despair and cynicism makes sense to me. Even as the inexorable march of corporate innovation carefully strips our rights away without discussion, it makes sense that you don't see government as being different, because you hold yourself powerless in this regard. And it's true. Corporations have more money than you, hold the government in higher esteem because they can affect it to their profit, and willing take your choices away through lobbying, developing this product rather than that, and providing that service rather than this.

Personally, I'd rather be responsible. If something is broken, I will fix it, rather than giving up. That's just me. I've taken pains to understand why a democracy is worthwhile, so that I actually understand what is broken about my country's system and theoretically other countries as well.

Originally Posted by taylor

When someone is telling you what you can and can't do on property with the threat of force (Governments) I don't see that as free.

The definition of private property is that you can tell someone what they can and can't do on threat of government. Or, in the case of rational anarchism, on threat of your shotgun. Which is force.

Yes, you are free. But no one else is. If your property is communally owned, then you've just established a government. That regulates. On the exact same basis.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Communally owned property is what public property is. Choosing the government, in a democracy, means taking responsibility yourself. Every democratic citizen is a governor. That's what democracy means. Choosing a corporation means giving that responsibility to someone else. It means handing over your ability to make decisions to an opaque organization whose sole interest in you is your capacity to fork over cash.

It's interesting, you reverse the whole case for Libertarianism, that is you take responsibility and freedom, and then project those qualities onto the State.

Taking responsibility means you are personally responsible for making something happen. Governments constrain your ability to make something happen by claiming some collective agency has authority over you. But what is the basis for their authority really other than artificial concepts and brute physical force. If you think you actually have power as a voter you are deluding yourself. Your vote is always going to be outweighed by the majority. Therefore you are bound and subject to majority rule.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Personally, I'd rather be responsible. If something is broken, I will fix it, rather than giving up. That's just me. I've taken pains to understand why a democracy is worthwhile, so that I actually understand what is broken about my country's system and theoretically other countries as well.

More power to you! But you don't need anyone's permission to fix it. You just do it.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

The definition of private property is that you can tell someone what they can and can't do on threat of government. Or, in the case of rational anarchism, on threat of your shotgun. Which is force.

Yes, you are free. But no one else is. If your property is communally owned, then you've just established a government. That regulates. On the exact same basis.

True. My point though is that in the real world you aren't free under any system. You're always bound by force either by government or privately. So as long as you are pursuing ethical values, choosing the one that gives you the most personal power is the best. And ideally you still retain enough personal responsibility to act outside the system whenever you so choose because your ethics and the system will undoubtedly disagree often.

I personally think the whole state/corporation thing is different shades of the same con game. Con game meaning a belief system without underlying reality designed to give its makers more power.

The reality is anarchy -- a mass of people with different agendas trying to do or get what they want in an environment of scarcity with varying methods and degrees of success.

It sounds perhaps cynical but I mean it in an empowering and ethical way. Maybe if the ethical people ever realize the score they can actually do some good instead of being robbed and exploited. Sadly it is usually only fellow con men that see it for what it is.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by taylor

It's interesting, you reverse the whole case for Libertarianism, that is you take responsibility and freedom, and then project those qualities onto the State.

A democracy is a state which is governed by its people. The distinction between the state and its public should be fuzzy and difficult to perceive. Given that I am a democratic citizen, by definition, I am the State. If I am projecting responsibility and freedom onto the State, it is because it is me. If the State does not reflect my own desires, then that is my failing. I do not claim that the state is some vague authority upon whom I can foist responsibility. I do not blame. I do not rebel. I work.

Originally Posted by taylor

If you think you actually have power as a voter you are deluding yourself. Your vote is always going to be outweighed by the majority. Therefore you are bound and subject to majority rule.

Voting is a last resort in a decision-making process. It's a formality to officially tally opinions, so that everyone can be clear on where they stand in relation to others.

Democracy is not about voting. It's about conversation. The power of a democratic citizen is the ability to speak and convince others of the rightness of zir position. The capacity to have a civil discussion, to trust that others have your best interests in mind, and to earnestly and cooperatively search for an ideal solution that suitably meets both your needs and theirs is the essence of democracy.

It is worth reading Parliamentary procedure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to this end.

Originally Posted by taylor

More power to you! But you don't need anyone's permission to fix it. You just do it.

I am fixing it. Here. Now. By posting in this thread. By explaining that it can be fixed. By you. By me. Here. Now.

Originally Posted by taylor

My point though is that in the real world you aren't free under any system. You're always bound by force either by government or privately.

Then it hardly matters that that you're more or less free, when you're never free, is it? Why belabor the point?

Originally Posted by taylor

I personally think the whole state/corporation thing is different shades of the same con game. Con game meaning a belief system without underlying reality designed to give its makers more power.

Perhaps it is a confidence scheme, but considering the prevalence of hierarchical organizations in other species, I find it hard to credit this conspiracy as being perpetrated by anyone lower than an anthropomorphic and malicious God.

Originally Posted by taylor

The reality is anarchy -- a mass of people with different agendas trying to do or get what they want in an environment of scarcity with varying methods and degrees of success.

It sounds perhaps cynical but I mean it in an empowering and ethical way. Maybe if the ethical people ever realize the score they can actually do some good instead of being robbed and exploited. Sadly it is usually only fellow con men that see it for what it is.

And that mass of people with different agendas often bump into each other, compare notes, realize that they have some similar goals--like surviving until the next day--and realize that they could cooperate just a little in order to ensure a higher chance of achieving some of those goals.

It is seductive to want to believe in a vast and terrible darkness enacted by shadowy evil tyrants, but such a belief is unnecessary to explain the way things are. It is not difficult to see how the present day has arisen from the strange foibles and quirks of human beings over history, working out the natural consequences of biological impulses like empathy, territorialism, and fairness.

But while knowing is half the battle, it remains only half the battle. Seeing is not enough; you must act.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

A democracy is a state which is governed by its people. The distinction between the state and its public should be fuzzy and difficult to perceive. Given that I am a democratic citizen, by definition, I am the State. If I am projecting responsibility and freedom onto the State, it is because it is me. If the State does not reflect my own desires, then that is my failing. I do not claim that the state is some vague authority upon whom I can foist responsibility. I do not blame. I do not rebel. I work.

You sound like you hold very positive ideals and values which I appreciate but you also sound trained in a belief system that has you giving up some of your power to actualize those ideals and values. Your perspective actually is more empowering than most because it gives you something to work on. You are working within the system which is fine. I merely claim that the system is there to be used if it should help you realize your values, but it's also just something people made up so if it gets in the way, ignore it or do away with it.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Voting is a last resort in a decision-making process. It's a formality to officially tally opinions, so that everyone can be clear on where they stand in relation to others.

Democracy is not about voting. It's about conversation. The power of a democratic citizen is the ability to speak and convince others of the rightness of zir position. The capacity to have a civil discussion, to trust that others have your best interests in mind, and to earnestly and cooperatively search for an ideal solution that suitably meets both your needs and theirs is the essence of democracy.

It is worth reading Parliamentary procedure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to this end.

So it's sort of everyone getting together and working out something that is okay for all of us? Sounds like a positive ideal, and yet I don't think it works that way. Someone wins. Someone loses. Everyone can't have it their own desired way. That's just the nature of scarce resources.

What you end up with is people employing all the tools at their disposal to actualize their own values, whatever those are. It's only a conversation if people are relaxed about if they get their way, which isn't the case. It's more like an arena where everyone is fighting with whatever tools they can to win their way. If you ignore the rhetoric and look at people's political power moves it's quite revealing.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I am fixing it. Here. Now. By posting in this thread. By explaining that it can be fixed. By you. By me. Here. Now.

I'm sure you're doing what you think is good, as am I. I guess we disagree though about the specific direction to take. What are we to do? Vote on who's right? No thanks. I'll just do what I choose.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Then it hardly matters that that you're more or less free, when you're never free, is it? Why belabor the point?

I believe in working with reality as it is. People who believe in governmental systems seem to believe in working within a virtual reality as it is. That's fine, but it's a game rigged against you. Just like a chess board, if you believe in the made up rules of the game, you can only move where someone else allows you to. What gives them the right to say which moves you can make? Nothing but your belief.

With a government it's more like nothing but your belief and their guns.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Perhaps it is a confidence scheme, but considering the prevalence of hierarchical organizations in other species, I find it hard to credit this conspiracy as being perpetrated by anyone lower than an anthropomorphic and malicious God.

And that mass of people with different agendas often bump into each other, compare notes, realize that they have some similar goals--like surviving until the next day--and realize that they could cooperate just a little in order to ensure a higher chance of achieving some of those goals.

It is seductive to want to believe in a vast and terrible darkness enacted by shadowy evil tyrants, but such a belief is unnecessary to explain the way things are. It is not difficult to see how the present day has arisen from the strange foibles and quirks of human beings over history, working out the natural consequences of biological impulses like empathy, territorialism, and fairness.

But while knowing is half the battle, it remains only half the battle. Seeing is not enough; you must act.

Didn't mean this as a conspiracy theory. It's human nature. People are working towards their own values whether that be positive or negative. The creation of institutional belief systems is just another tool to bring those values about. To assume these belief systems have actual underlying validity and authority though means you are subjugating your own autonomy to someone elses mental creation.

To give away your power to some external authority means you are less capable of actualizing your values.

There is no upside to this.

By all means play the game, work within the system to make real changes.

If you want to win however it's a lot easier if you make your own rules.

[Michael Chui]

Well, we can play this game all day, so I'll just summarize it,

The Joker: Don't talk like one of them, you're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me. They need you right now. But when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper. See, their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people will eat each other. You have all these rules and you think they'll save you!
Batman: I have one rule.
The Joker: Oh, then that's the rule you'll have to break in order to know the truth.
Batman: Which is?
The Joker: The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.

---

So, question:

Should I spend the time and effort to write out the proper way to run a democracy here, or do you think it wouldn't persuade you? Because I can't argue against you here without your understanding my perspective, and I can't provide that perspective without hashing this all out. It's great for me to say, "We have to work at it," but as you can see, it's terribly unpersuasive without a demonstration.

I am going to have to do this sometime this year, and it'll take me a few days to manage the task, so I'm really wondering if I should do it now or later.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by taylor

People are working towards their own values whether that be positive or negative. The creation of institutional belief systems is just another tool to bring those values about. To assume these belief systems have actual underlying validity and authority though means you are subjugating your own autonomy to someone elses mental creation.

To give away your power to some external authority means you are less capable of actualizing your values.

There is no upside to this.

I know exactly what you mean. Problem is that even though the individual may not believe in any of these systems the majority does. If you break the law you will go to jail. And if you want to buy something you will need money. So on and so forth.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Well, we can play this game all day, so I'll just summarize it,

The Joker: Don't talk like one of them, you're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me. They need you right now. But when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper. See, their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people will eat each other. You have all these rules and you think they'll save you!
Batman: I have one rule.
The Joker: Oh, then that's the rule you'll have to break in order to know the truth.
Batman: Which is?
The Joker: The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.

This can't be a good sign. I'm starting to sound like a super villain!

I actually thought he had some pretty insightful philosophy in that movie. Well, minus all the violence and mayhem stuff.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Should I spend the time and effort to write out the proper way to run a democracy here, or do you think it wouldn't persuade you?

Because I can't argue against you here without your understanding my perspective, and I can't provide that perspective without hashing this all out. It's great for me to say, "We have to work at it," but as you can see, it's terribly unpersuasive without a demonstration.

I am going to have to do this sometime this year, and it'll take me a few days to manage the task, so I'm really wondering if I should do it now or later.

Honestly, I don't think I'm the right audience for that. If you do decide to write it, it should be for yourself or for a more general audience, and probably start a new thread.

I seriously doubt much of anything could persuade me at this point. It would likely have to be something that reveals a major blind spot that runs extremely deep in my philosophy. Just so you know who you're dealing with and what a waste of time this probably is, I'm a heavy student of: deconstructionism, radical skeptical philosophical schools, eastern non-dualistic mysticism, relativity, existentialism, psychology with an emphasis on misperceptions and biases, deception (magic, cons, manipulation), general semantics and logic, yada yada. Basically all of these would probably either be skeptical to or outright deny democratic governmental constructions.

But even if we didn't agree all the way, I did find our conversation interesting.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I know exactly what you mean. Problem is that even though the individual may not believe in any of these systems the majority does. If you break the law you will go to jail. And if you want to buy something you will need money. So on and so forth.

It should be rephrased "If you break the law you will go to jail, if you get caught and are convicted." Technically speaking.

But now this makes me sound like I'm advocating evil which is not my intention and I would imagine a popular misinterpretation if this philosophy were to ever be hypothetically unleashed on the public at large.

I think it's important to know the underlying reality of the situation so that you can make more accurate decisions rather than having an arbitrarily limited number of options. If you're having to break the law with a reasonable chance of getting caught, you're likely making an overly brash and impatient move with unnecessary exposure. This is a strategic mistake rather than something that is nasty or bad.

Look at those who already know the score to see the effective strategic moves. Let's take politicians as an example.

The internet favorite Ron Paul for example doesn't get it. I have enormous respect for his integrity and discipline, but among other politicians, it's obvious he doesn't understand power or even think it's really appropriate. That's what makes him so great, but at the same time it makes him vulnerable and weak to more flexible politicians. He believes that he's subject to the Constitution and won't ever violate it. If there were some decision that would greatly further his power and therefore advance his values of liberty and freedom for others, he would actually reject it if it went against the Constitution. This makes Ron Paul an idealist, but not someone who is free to actualize their values. He will always be self-constrained by ideas other people made up hundreds of years ago.

Jefferson was an idealist like Paul but also a realist. When he was President he went outside his defined role in the Constitution to purchase Louisiana. He was pursuing his values in violation of the law but knew he could get away with it, so he did it. He wasn't trying to get some selfish end in this case, he just believed that an abundance of land was necessary for citizen's freedom and took action to make it happen. Jefferson who helped create the Constitution knew its limits and that it can and should be violated when needed.

It seems like some of the best people don't get this and think any violation of rules is evil. They believe all the rhetoric and are constrained by it. That leaves the true "thieves in suits" to bend all the rules they can get away with and take all the good people's power. Then they use this power to actualize their values which it turns out are pretty terrible and selfish.

This philosophy isn't going to be too helpful for Average Joes going about their life without much contact with power. But even they have petty corporate power games at work. This widespread advancement of people who know how to flatter and play the game rather than people who do good work and play by the rules, is a huge drain on the economy. We want the brightest, most well intentioned, most talented people at the helm, and yet the powerful jobs tend to go to the most politically savvy whose main strengths lie in manipulating and getting ahead and whose intentions start and end with their bank account.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by taylor

This can't be a good sign. I'm starting to sound like a super villain!

I actually thought he had some pretty insightful philosophy in that movie. Well, minus all the violence and mayhem stuff.

He did. Radical deconstruction is super useful for breaking traditions, returning to first principles, and really understanding the heart of a matter so that you can figure out the right direction to go in next.

The Joker is right, after all: Batman is just like him. The difference is that Batman wants something. A better Gotham. And of course, you have Dent, who was first the fairness of justice, that blunt hammer of the unseeing law, then the fairness of chance, unlawful, unreasonable, unruly.

Originally Posted by taylor

Honestly, I don't think I'm the right audience for that. If you do decide to write it, it should be for yourself or for a more general audience, and probably start a new thread.

That's fine. If you had asked for it, I would have spent a 6-hour plane trip writing it and it would have been seriously unfun. And I would be annoyed with it because it wouldn't have the right level of polish.

It would have been worth it if it could convince you. But it won't.

Originally Posted by taylor

But even if we didn't agree all the way, I did find our conversation interesting.

Same.

Instead of arguing anything, I want to link you something to read. The book mentioned is the book that made me understand why democracy wasn't merely the least worst system of governance we have: that it's actually a good thing. The interview probably won't persuade you, but maybe it'll move you to pick up the book, as it did me.

Danielle S. Allen, author of Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Educationan

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by taylor

It seems like some of the best people don't get this and think any violation of rules is evil.

Rule 1. Follow all these rules.
Rule 2. Break all these rules.
Rule 3. Change all these rules.

I fully agree with everything you said except the stuff about Ron Paul.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Rule 1. Follow all these rules.
Rule 2. Break all these rules.
Rule 3. Change all these rules.

I fully agree with everything you said except the stuff about Ron Paul.

lol

[taylor]

Read the interview but it kinda creeped me out tbh. All this "citizen" and "sacrifice" stuff sounds like I'm a "mark" in con terminology. Good rule of thumb to avoid being scammed: ignore all their words and just hold onto your money. Cynical? Me? Nah...

[JDuff]

Hello everyone.

Spinoza: "Care to share some historical examples that illustrate your point. What are some examples of forced redistribution being more equitable to the populace at large and has a better outcome for the majority of the populace."

I think you are asking what degree of distribution is optimal, and what evidence there is of such a distribution being optimal (for the majority of the populace).

You may mean that if there was less redistribution, the majority would make up for it with more gains than they get from the redistribution. This may be the case when we move from more severe redistribution to less. However, the converse is also true, and it is easy to imagine many peasants in China being better off if the Chinese government invested and redistributed some of the wealth that they have stockpiled and that the elites are gaining.

I don't actually have any demonstratable evidence of what an optimal redistributive level is unfortunately.

Perhaps we could compare somewhere with comparatively little redistribution, for example China, with somewhere with very high redistribution, like Sweden. The majority of people in the latter have more things like health care, access to education, protection against homelessness and poverty, and so on.

Petr: Can you explain this one a bit more?

We see the world through very different eyes.

Sure. What I meant was that Libertarianism entails inequality and very bad conditions for the majority. Consider 19th century Industrial England. Workers in Manchester in the cotton-mills had a life expectancy of 17. This was unrestrained Libertarianism, with little or no regulation and workers rights or redistribution of wealth (welfare system). So the factory-owners took all the profits whilst the workers had the options of slavery or starvation.

Even if you consider a fair beginning (which never happened and which Libertarians don't endorse) the same thing happens. Consider we start again and all land is privatised and distributed equally. Over time, it ends up being conglomerated into smaller and smaller numbers of people, as some win and others lose in the game of life. Once this carries on for a while, we end up with many who have very little, and a few who have a lot. One example of this is how we went from small businesses to a few corporations dominating each sector of business.

If we don't redistribute in this situation and protect the property rights instead, then if you happen to be born into a poor family (which is a statistical probability), then you have very little chances in life, other than to work just to survive. This, in the analogy above, would be the equivalent of having to work a minimum wage job in a supermarket. The only protections the majority at the bottom have are the regulations that gurantee a minimum wage, certain employee rights, and so on. But it is almost certain to provide less of an opportunity for a decent life the more these regulations are relaxed, and the lower you get paid, the worse conditions you have, and the less money is collected from the people at the top of the pyramid to distribute in investment or welfare, which I presume is what Libertarianism demands. So you will tend towards being a worker in a cotton-mill. Or a sweat-shop worker somewhere.

The less distribution, the less chance you will have to escape the predicament you are born into.

James Fletcher: "The good of the many outweighing the good of the few may sound just in principle, but in reality the few cannot possibly carry the burden of the needs of the many."

This is a good point. Dworkin calls it "the slavery of the talented." To get around this, it is suggested that people should be compensated only for what they are not responsible for. This actually leads to quite a high level of redistribution, because people are not responsible for a great deal of things, e.g. level of income they are born into, their genes (e.g. IQ ranges, disabilities) and so on.

If we do that, then you can allow people's choices to determine their life, which I guess relieves any unnecessary burden. But if we allow circumstances to determine someone's life, then perhaps it is not fair that some are rich and others poor due to things they don't deserve credit for?

I understand that the rich shouldn't have an unfair burden. But a burden implies too much reliance on the rich, which suggests that the majority are unreasonably dependent on them. They are dependent on them only if they are unable to support themselves, which is what seems to happen more under Libertarianism. So, in fact, the burden is higher when there is little or no distribution, because the poor are completely reliant for their survival on the rich.

I guess my point is Libertarianism doesn't remove the burden - we simply ignore it. To relieve the burden, perhaps we need a mean between reliance on the rich simply to survive, and making unfair demands on the rich (i.e. not taking control for what they are responsible for). Such a mean might involve some degree of neutralisation of circumstances in people's lives.