Old 01-07-2012, 09:59 AM   #1126
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
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.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Last edited by Irreligious; 01-07-2012 at 10:16 AM.
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:04 AM   #1127
Stargazer
Obsessed Member
 
Stargazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
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.

I thought you said you didn't care what any of us thought? So, you do care? I do wish you would make up your mind already. - NKB
Stargazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:19 AM   #1128
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Kinich Ahau wrote View Post
Individually? Or just individuals with the power of capital and property?
Individuals, as per the definition.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
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?

Quote:
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.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:21 AM   #1129
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
What power are they going to amass?
Money is not power?

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:23 AM   #1130
Stargazer
Obsessed Member
 
Stargazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
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.

I thought you said you didn't care what any of us thought? So, you do care? I do wish you would make up your mind already. - NKB
Stargazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:43 AM   #1131
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Money is not power?
On its own? No.

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

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:44 AM   #1132
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Stargazer wrote View Post
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.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:49 AM   #1133
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
On its own? No.
I'm not following you. What is money "on its own?"

Quote:
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?

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:52 AM   #1134
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
And that disagreement has logical implications, which is what I commented on.
And your disagreement with Stargazer has no logical implications?

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:54 AM   #1135
Stargazer
Obsessed Member
 
Stargazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
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.

I thought you said you didn't care what any of us thought? So, you do care? I do wish you would make up your mind already. - NKB
Stargazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 11:17 AM   #1136
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
I'm not following you. What is money "on its own?"
A claim on wealth and a means of transaction

Quote:
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?

Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
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.

Quote:
Stargazer wrote View Post
I prefer to come to my own conclusions, thanks.
Then do so. I never forced a conclusion on you.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 11:32 AM   #1137
Kinich Ahau
Obsessed Member
 
Kinich Ahau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Great Ocean Road
Posts: 2,917
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]

Once you are dead, you are nothing. Graffito, Pompeii
Kinich Ahau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 11:38 AM   #1138
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
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.


Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 11:50 AM   #1139
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Kinich Ahau wrote View Post
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...

Quote:
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.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 12:12 PM   #1140
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:06 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational