I'm So Embarrassed That I Ever Called Myself A "liberal."

JoeKool

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
299
Remember, Conservatism doesn't compete with liberalism... it sustains it... so when I'm asked why I'm a conservative ... I say 'So you can be a liberal'
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
I have seen him on TV and admit that he is a very smart man but he, like everyone on TV, is playing a role. The comment above about the Pied Piper and how the elite uses ideologies against us comes to mind. He usually has much better arguments than that one about his cousin coming over for dinner. It seems Libertarians have a need for false analogies and other assorted logical fallacies. I wonder why.

Your use of personal attacks after just complaining about being personally attacked and calling someone prejudiced after defending the concept of segregated stores is a little sad.

The fact that you completely ignored my entire post must mean that you agree with it. I am glad.

I'm saying that when you haven't read a word written by the man, and only seen snippets on television, I don't consider you having an opinion on him worth responding to. You think you know what his "deal" is, but you don't. You are ignorant on the literature. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's the correct word to describe someone who hasn't read or otherwise sought and absorbed the material.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
I'm saying that when you haven't read a word written by the man, and only seen snippets on television, I don't consider you having an opinion on him worth responding to. You think you know what his "deal" is, but you don't. You are ignorant on the literature. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's the correct word to describe someone who hasn't read or otherwise sought and absorbed the material.
Funny, from my viewpoint it looks like you are bailing out of a losing argument by ignoring the bulk of what I had to say and cherry picking my disagreement with your saintly Judge.
The truth is that I don't have to read Napolitano's books to get an accurate opinion of his beliefs after seeing him for hours and hours on TV. I also don't need to read his books to find that snippet on his opinion on open borders ludicrous. Likewise I don't need to read Killing Kennedy to have an accurate opinion of Bill O'Reilly.
But don't worry you couldn't hurt my feelings even if you tried. I was just pointing out your blatant hypocrisy.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Immigration doesn't only affect competition for low-skill labor, it also lowers prices of goods. The fact that you don't know that and haven't looked into it, which I can tell from how you framed your argument, makes it undesirable for me to argue with you about it. Gene Epstein of Baron's writes about it a lot very well.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Immigration doesn't only affect competition for low-skill labor, it also lowers prices of goods. The fact that you don't know that and haven't looked into it, which I can tell from how you framed your argument, makes it undesirable for me to argue with you about it. Gene Epstein of Baron's writes about it a lot very well.
Chattel slavery and child labor also reduces the price of goods as well as puts people out of work. You are blinded by your ideology as others have pointed out.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Chattel slavery and child labor also reduces the price of goods as well as puts people out of work. You are blinded by your ideology as others have pointed out.
Child labor has only ever been ended in wealthy societies that built up enough capital to do so. When Westerners who think child labor is per se wrong like yourself go into countries like Bangladesh and get them to criminalize it, you get stats of more starving children and child prostitutes. They need to go through child labor and build up capital to increase the production of their adult workers, then and only then can they end child labor. Or would instituting the code of laws regulating Western labor markets instituted in the Democratic Republic of Congo increase their quality of life?
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
I think an interesting question that you both could answer that would illuminate many things is "who is responsible?" In other words, if there is a free market, is someone responsible for keeping it thus? If there is poverty, is someone responsible for trying to remedy it? When these conversations happen, it seems like people talk past each other because there is a basic misunderstanding of who is responsible. If some awful thing like child labor happens within a free market, are the participants of that market responsible for the remedy of that? Is the govt?

I think when libertarians speak and people scratch their head it is a basic misunderstanding of this issue. Many people think that if something bad happens, it is the govt/rulers who are responsible for remedying it. Is that true?
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
I think an interesting question that you both could answer that would illuminate many things is "who is responsible?" In other words, if there is a free market, is someone responsible for keeping it thus? If there is poverty, is someone responsible for trying to remedy it? When these conversations happen, it seems like people talk past each other because there is a basic misunderstanding of who is responsible. If some awful thing like child labor happens within a free market, are the participants of that market responsible for the remedy of that? Is the govt?

I think when libertarians speak and people scratch their head it is a basic misunderstanding of this issue. Many people think that if something bad happens, it is the govt/rulers who are responsible for remedying it. Is that true?

I think it's a result of being educated in state schools that imply, and sometimes explicitly teach, that only the state can do meaningful things in society that help everyone. Private actors can only help themselves. The truth is largely the opposite, libertarians are red pilled on this, and blue pilled statists can't see it then.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” - Bastiat, from The Law
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
I think it's a result of being educated in state schools that imply, and sometimes explicitly teach, that only the state can do meaningful things in society that help everyone. Private actors can only help themselves. The truth is largely the opposite, libertarians are red pilled on this, and blue pilled statists can't see it then.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” - Bastiat, from The Law

Yeah I like that quote.

What got me thinking along these lines was watching people talk about free markets like they are a thing. They actually are not in the same way that a government program or socialism are a thing. A free market drilled down to the most reduced level is two people making a voluntary transaction. No regulation, no third party to step in and make sure everything is fair. When a lot of people do these transactions, we call it a free market. It is emergent order, not an order from above.

The posts above about child labor, saying that a free market results in child labor...it's the wrong way to talk about it. If I am getting together with someone else and we decide to enslave some kids to get the work done...that is just me and the other person being evil.

Evil probably scares people who advocate for govt intervention the most. People left to their own devices can do bad things, which is true. There are terrible people out there who do terrible things when they have the power, but is this the argument against free markets? If it is, it does not follow that governance will work better.

The thing that gets me about the "well free markets definitely aren't the solution to all the problems," or "free markets made slavery..." is that at the root of those who disdain capitalism and free markets is a disdain of humans in general. Humans are too evil to be allowed to be free. That is a solid argument in many ways you have to admit...Many humans do terrible things. I think our solution for a long time was to use God and religion, this higher power, to govern ourselves. We recognized that simply putting people above the so called evil doers did not prevent those people above from being evil. God is gone though now, and all we have are ourselves.

Socialism eventually cannibalizes itself, and as far as I can see it is because at the root of its belief is that humans are too evil to be free, they need to be controlled. Evil to control evil or something like that.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I had no illusion that you wouldn’t be able to answer those questions. I just wanted to see how bad your answers would be. And you didn’t disappoint. There are no good answers to them because Libertarianism is a flawed concept that doesn’t work in the real world. It is based on individuality taken to a ridiculous extreme just as communism is based on social responsibilities taken to a ridiculous extreme. As the Buddha said, the truth doesn't lie at the extremes but along the middle path.

The Buddha is right. I appreciate libertarianism spelling out the extremes at which point it ceases to be practical/useful to us. It is like being fundamentalists in any faith, where people follow laws to the point that it stops serving their needs, and only does so without question because the law saves them from useful thinking and disagreeing and debating about issues.. And certainly, the law tends to preserve the status quo, which benefits the rulers. This is a strong reason why, if I draw an example from the bible, that Jesus was controversial in saying that the law must serve man, and not the other way around.

But I like to take libertarianism as a starting point, and build from there by "watering it down" from it to make something practical. The benefit of that is that I'm not starting from scratch, and I would consider that as adding value to a good set of foundations. The most salutary effect of such an approach, I think, would be to keep us from thinking of using government as the answer for all our needs and wants. Government is always doomed to decay because of man's ( and corporations') constant attempts to game the system. However noble the intent upon which a law is made, it will always be warped by politicians and special interests to their favor, and over time the law becomes deformed and useless. And intrinsically an evil.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
How exactly is bejng "extreme" in opposing aggressive violence a bad thing?

Tell me true yerrag, are you an "extremist" vis a vis rape? Murder? How much of that should we consider hunky dory to satisfy not being "extremists?"
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
How exactly is bejng "extreme" in opposing aggressive violence a bad thing?

Tell me true yerrag, are you an "extremist" vis a vis rape? Murder? How much of that should we consider hunky dory to satisfy not being "extremists?"
Do you want to split hair here?
Extreme is being tied to libertarianism and applying it hook, line, and sinker.

That is extreme. If you are such a practitioner, I would consider you an extremist libertarian.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
I think an interesting question that you both could answer that would illuminate many things is "who is responsible?" In other words, if there is a free market, is someone responsible for keeping it thus? If there is poverty, is someone responsible for trying to remedy it? When these conversations happen, it seems like people talk past each other because there is a basic misunderstanding of who is responsible. If some awful thing like child labor happens within a free market, are the participants of that market responsible for the remedy of that? Is the govt?

I think when libertarians speak and people scratch their head it is a basic misunderstanding of this issue. Many people think that if something bad happens, it is the govt/rulers who are responsible for remedying it. Is that true?
That's a good question but I think the answer is it depends on the issue. My issue with Libertarian thought is that they seem to think that individuals can solve almost all of societies problems whereas it is sometimes more efficient for the Government to do so. As an example, would you like to inspect the kitchen of every restaurant you eat in. I think there are also a lot of worthwhile societal goals that need Government involvement. One I mentioned above is anti-discrimination laws.

To answer your specific areas, in terms of social safety net issues, the private sector seems to do a much better job at actually getting people back on their feet. Government programs do just the opposite and come with a lot of social engineering goals hidden within.

The maintenance of the free markets can be a combination between government and individuals. Laws have to be tightened to keep companies from dominating industries and growing too big for the free market to work. The way anti-trust cases are decided now is completely screwed up. Individuals and companies are allowed to sue for anti-trust violations but I think this needs to be made easier to do as you don't see a lot if these lawsuits actually go anywhere.

Excesses of capitalism such as child labor abuses or environmental pollution should also be dealt with by a combination of law enforcement and civil suits by individuals.
 
Last edited:

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Child labor has only ever been ended in wealthy societies that built up enough capital to do so. When Westerners who think child labor is per se wrong like yourself go into countries like Bangladesh and get them to criminalize it, you get stats of more starving children and child prostitutes. They need to go through child labor and build up capital to increase the production of their adult workers, then and only then can they end child labor. Or would instituting the code of laws regulating Western labor markets instituted in the Democratic Republic of Congo increase their quality of life?
Lol, you will literally argue anything. My only point in bringing up slavery and child labor is that though they also lower consumer costs, that isn't a good reason to allow it. Likewise illegal immigration obviously has some benefits to consumers but the cost to society as a whole is much worse. The studies that show that immigration is a net plus are extremely flawed. They either only looks at Federal Government outlays vs payroll taxes or conflate illegal with legal immigration in terms of job creation.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Do you want to split hair here?
Extreme is being tied to libertarianism and applying it hook, line, and sinker.

That is extreme. If you are such a practitioner, I would consider you an extremist libertarian.

So if I am "extremely" against murder, I am an "extremist libertarian?" In what way, other than extreme, do you oppose murder?
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
That's a good question but I think the answer is it depends on the issue. My issue with Libertarian thought is that they seem to think that individuals can solve almost all of societies problems whereas it is sometimes more efficient for the Government to do so.

This is the classic false dichotomy people end up with after growing up in state run schools. Government does not equal society, and opposing the institutionalized use of force does not oppose individuals cooperating. Wouldn't that be silly? I would like you to admit that you didn't realize this, read some literature, and we can move on from there.

Angie's list is an example of society working to ensure quality. The reason why this principle is not applied to other sectors is because the state monopolizes them. The only reason the post office, for example, can survive is because A) it can run permanent deficits and receive general funds from the government to make up for it and B) it's illegal to compete in first class mail. Restaurants would have their reputation to worry about, and if that wasn't enough of an incentive to make people feel comfortable, a service would arise to inspect restaurants for cleanliness. Not unlike the Zagat rating system, where private companies are allowed to act. Now you will probably say that can't work or that the companies would collude with the restaurants, but that is simply as assertion.

What we know on this issue are 2 things:
1) when the government doesn't legally prevent a service from being delivered, even road building, schooling (Pauline Dixon has a TED talk about low cost private schools popping up in the third world, if you think that wouldn't be affordable), and even pharmaceutical safety. I forget the name of it, but there is a private watchdog website of doctors that issues safety warnings and predicts when drugs are going to be taken off the market for safety concerns. Their record is spotless, and they have warned against every drug the FDA eventually targets and removes from the market. And that, mind you, is in a world where the FDA already exists and it's illegal to work around them in the sector. Imagine how many non-violent solutions would exist to these problems you conjure in your head if the state organizations were simply taken off the table.

2) there are several glaring examples of collusion between government so-called safety agencies or regulators and the industry actors they are meant to regulate, so if anything you should be admitting there is at least a possibility of reigning that in through competition. The public, once they know an agency is corrupt, could stop paying them. You might not realize this, but when the public realizes a government agency is corrupt, they still contribute to it through all of their taxed and fee'd activities.

This is a time for introspection, do you really think that libertarians don't understand cooperation is necessary, division of labor, etc? Division of labor, ironically, is an economic term that market proponents came up with. The only point of libertarianism is that social activity can be organized by a principle other than institutionalized violence.

Another introspection item, do you apply the same dismissive scrutiny you do to libertarianism, to it's opposite? In other words, are you arguing from the perspective that it can't possibly be correct, I "feel" that it's silly, and then rationalizing it with you half-baked straw man arguments? Or is this your true and honest fair assessment of the philosophy?

P.S. - that private website that predicted unsafe drugs is called "Worst Pills, Best Pills." Check out their track record, it is better than the FDA without having a violent coercive monopoly on regulating the industry. It's almost as if having to compete for consumers increases the quality of the thing offered them, whereas having a violent monopoly decreases that quality and changes the incentives! Worst Pills
 
Last edited:

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
So if I am "extremely" against murder, I am an "extremist libertarian?" In what way, other than extreme, do you oppose murder?[/QUOTE
I don't see the point of this question. Do libertarians have a substantially differing disposition towards how they view murder?
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Lol, you will literally argue anything. My only point in bringing up slavery and child labor is that though they also lower consumer costs, that isn't a good reason to allow it. Likewise illegal immigration obviously has some benefits to consumers but the cost to society as a whole is much worse. The studies that show that immigration is a net plus are extremely flawed. They either only looks at Federal Government outlays vs payroll taxes or conflate illegal with legal immigration in terms of job creation.

What do you mean by "allow it?" Would you prevent children in Bangladesh from working, when I just explained to you what happened? Do you realize that American in 1790 was no richer than Bangladesh, and that's why children had to work in the early factories of the 19th century? And that as soon as the society could afford it, through capital accumulation increasing the productivity of the labor of men, child labor fell out of fashion? Same thing with work place safety, a society first has to be wealthy enough to afford these measures, all of the safety regulations in the world wouldn't change the working conditions for Bangladesh (I keep using it as a consistent example, cause I have read the stats on child prostitution and starvation after they were forced to stop "child labor"), or rather they would have no industry because their small amount of capital couldn't afford it.

I think you're asking the wrong question, you seem to be wondering why there is poverty or bad conditions in the work place. Poverty is the natural state. Imagine you are dropped, alone or with your family and friends, in the woods 2,000 years ago. You have no "greedy capitalists" to oppress you. No one to make your children work. Are you rich, or poor? You might want to ask yourself the question, why is there wealth?

P.S. - rereading your previous post, it's amazing you think child labor and pollution are excesses of capitalism. Did you copy and paste that directly or simply memorize it from someone else writing that on the internet? The Soviet Union polluted more than anyone else in that time, and in our society now the military (government) is the largest polluter. Child labor, as I have explained, is a natural state of existence in poverty. It's historically/sociologically ignorant in the extreme to labor under the delusion (I hope you children aren't laboring under this delusion) that capitalism invented child labor. Truly hilarious. Capitalism is the only system that ever got rid of child labor, through industry. Or are there children in pre-industrialized civilizations sitting around in leisure all day, or going to school, without having to "labor?"
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
I don't see the point of this question. Do libertarians have a substantially differing disposition towards how they view murder?

I'm demonstrating to you that being "extremely against" something is not a bad thing. At some point it became fashionable to be "against extremism." But that is just a silly phrase, you can show it's silly be asking if they are "extremely against extremism."

Do you follow?
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I'm demonstrating to you that being "extremely against" something is not a bad thing. At some point it became fashionable to be "against extremism." But that is just a silly phrase, you can show it's silly be asking if they are "extremely against extremism."

Do you follow?
Maybe I shouldn't call you an extremist libertarian. I should just say that while I agree with the spirit that runs through libertarianism, I cannot wholesale go with it in practice. I detest big government, because it takes away from the individual's capacity to better himself, and as extension, to better society. But if government is about individuals working towards a common good, and not about individuals living off the largesse of a community chest where parasites outnumber those who actually work, I am not against government. That is a lot to ask for, and I'm not even sure if such a government exists among the many countries that dot the planet. But I don't think there is any country that is libertarian in practice either. It would be nice if you could be the president of such a country. I'll be the press and I'll savor the reporting of how unlibertarian you have come to be as the president.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom