Merkins 2012

[Irreligious]

So those who amass a disproportionate amount of power in the absence of government's interference will refrain from using that power in an authoritarian manner?

Cool.

[Stargazer]

Irreligious wrote

So those who amass a disproportionate amount power in the absence of government's interference will refrain from using that power in an authoritarian manner?

Cool.

Unlikely.

Power is so addictive.

[Victus]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Individually? Or just individuals with the power of capital and property?

Individuals, as per the definition.

Wiki wrote

Libertarianism has been variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. In the broadest sense, it is any political philosophy which approximates this view.

Irreligious wrote

So those who amass a disproportionate amount power in the absence of government's interference will refrain from using that power in an authoritarian manner?

Cool.

What power are they going to amass?

Stargazer wrote

Unlikely.

Power is so addictive.

So your solution to the existence of power is... more power. I can see you've thought this through.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

What power are they going to amass?

Money is not power?

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

Individuals, as per the definition.





What power are they going to amass?



So your solution to the existence of power is... more power. I can see you've thought this through.

Actually, I have. I did not offer a solution, you assigned one to me. I simply commented that power is addictive, and disagreed with the letter (not the sarcasm) of Irr's comment.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

Money is not power?

On its own? No.

Money is only useful if there are people willing to trade something they own for it.

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

Actually, I have. I did not offer a solution, you assigned one to me. I simply commented that power is addictive, and disagreed with the letter (not the sarcasm) of Irr's comment.

And that disagreement has logical implications, which is what I commented on.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

On its own? No.

I'm not following you. What is money "on its own?"

Victus wrote

Money is only useful if there are people willing to trade something they own for it.

And nobody wants power, right? That's not very useful. I mean, who would pay for that?

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

And that disagreement has logical implications, which is what I commented on.

And your disagreement with Stargazer has no logical implications?

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

And that disagreement has logical implications, which is what I commented on.

I prefer to come to my own conclusions, thanks. There are other logical conclusions that can be reached from my comment, such as:

Power needs a balancing power, so that each keeps the other from taking over and serving its own interests at the expense of all others.

And don't assume I mean the government should take over.

Neither do I support complete release of restriction of the private sector.

Both are extremes. There is a wealth of middle ground.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

I'm not following you. What is money "on its own?"

A claim on wealth and a means of transaction

Irr wrote

And nobody wants power, right? That's not very useful. I mean, who would pay for that?

To buy power, someone would need to 1) have some and 2) be willing to sell it to them. In a libertarian society, no one has power over anyone else in any formal sense (or said power is at least minimized), so condition (1) can't be met. And if the transfer of power is voluntary, then what's the complaint about?

Irreligious wrote

And your disagreement with Stargazer has no logical implications?

It does, but doesn't contradict anything I've said, as far as I can tell.

Stargazer wrote

I prefer to come to my own conclusions, thanks.

Then do so. I never forced a conclusion on you.

Stargazer wrote

There are other logical conclusions that can be reached from my comment, such as:

Power needs a balancing power, so that each keeps the other from taking over and serving its own interests at the expense of all others.

The government has a monopoly on the use of force - or power if you prefer. How is increasing that power at all balanced?

Stargazer wrote

And don't assume I mean the government should take over.

Neither do I support complete release of restriction of the private sector.

Restriction of the private sector by what? The government?

Stargazer wrote

Both are extremes. There is a wealth of middle ground.

Just because a position occupies the middle ground between two extremes doesn't mean it's correct, as per the argument of moderation fallacy.

[Kinich Ahau]

Thanks for the link. Through the link I found this. What do you think about this criticism?

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent:

if...the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights (62), the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's 'right to do wrong.'[1]

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

A claim on wealth and a means of transaction.

I know that people, as opposed to birds or dung beetles, make claims on wealth, but I still don't understand how money "on its own" is supposed to do that or what "money on its own" even means.

Vic wrote

To buy power, someone would need to 1) have some and 2) be willing to sell it to them.

Of course. Are you suggesting that people with little money and minimal power have nothing that people with lots of money might want? Or that having lots of money does not give the latter lots of leverage in any negotiations between the two?

If so, what's the point of amassing lots and lots of money?

Vic wrote

In a libertarian society, no one has power over anyone else in any formal sense (or said power is at least minimized)

How so?

Vic wrote

, so condition (1) can't be met. And if the transfer of power is voluntary, then what's the complaint about?

Well, you and I have been through this before and have very different perspectives on what constitutes voluntary vs. coercive behavior.

Vic wrote

It does, but doesn't contradict anything I've said, as far as I can tell.

And neither did Stargazer contradict herself, as far as I can tell.

[Victus]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Thanks for the link. Through the link I found this. What do you think about this criticism?

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent:

I think I'm not a natural law/deontological libertarian, but let's suppose that I were...

Friedmen wrote

if...the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights (62), the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's 'right to do wrong.'[1]

I could just deny that equal human rights prevent one human from owning another, so long as said ownership was derived voluntarily (i.e., the rights of the seller to sell them-self were respected). Given that, the supposed contradiction falls apart.

[Philboid Studge]

Victus wrote

Not if you, well, look up what the word means.

Libertarians don't want to shift authority to states, but away from the government in general (federal, state, and municipal) and towards individuals. You're talking about Federalism.

Fewer laws mean less authority for the judiciary as well.

Thank you for the Wikipedia quotes. I am always very, very impressed when a young man shows he can find information on the Internet. However, we were speaking of contemporary Merkin libertarianism, which has its representation in Ron Paul.

Congressman Paul holds the same dimwit views as most libertarians (even some in Canada) who would replace things like environmental regulations with tort. Lawyers and courts and judges: More of them, with more authority. I already know that that terrible truth does not comport with the La-La Land version of Libertopia, but I am speaking about something else: the real world.

And Rep. Paul would certainly let states wield more authority than they currently do (here, this will help you). And he has his authoritarian views on who should decide when a Blastocyst-American has "rights." (I know that ubs believes the mention of abortion is intended to draw attention from the "real issues," however a number of states are already writing up laws to contravene a female human's authority to make decisions about her body.)

We haven't even mentioned the New World Order of police who would be employed to protect "property rights" (something else which will have to be decided by judges, lawyers, and a jury of dimwit peers). More authority, not less. At least in the real world.

Can we not shepherd these idiotarian discussions to the Keynes thread? No? Never mind.