"THE FATAL FLAWS OF LIBERTARIANISM"
http://aphelionv.tumblr.com/post/8471021788/the-fatal-flaws-of-libertarianism
It is not a defense of libertarianism, as I don't consider libertarianism a coherent philosophy. It is commentary on the reasoning of the post.
I will start from the beginning:
"I see a disturbing trend going on in the United States right now, it includes a legion of people aligning themselves with Libertarianism(and Paleo-Conservatism). I’m not sure if these people know anything about it beyond the fact that Libertarians claim to embrace social freedom, but I really suspect these people dont know what economic freedom really entails, and how its actually somewhat contradictory. Also, this post will cover multiple topics, so be patient."
So, now we have the context of concern. I am not familiar with the term "Paleo-Conservatism".
A quick google search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
yields this definition:
"Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for a conservative political philosophy found primarily in theUnited States stressing tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity."
Since I am not familiar with "anti-colonialism" or "anti-federalism", I'll also look those up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
"Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
"Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.""
There are multiple elements at play here, and accordingly, it is unclear which of these is worrying.
Let's continue:
(defining freedom)
"First, let me define freedom with the following source:
the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>"Mkay. Next part.
"The social aspect of libertarianism is not something im against at all, its a good thing to be open minded about letting people live the life they want, assuming it doesnt hurt anyone else. However, the idea of economic liberty falls short because property rights are a state institution, and they are not objective rights that exist with or without the state."
Now, here we have a problem: the idea of property. Especially, property rights. The problem is the lack of a concise explanation as to what property rights are / what property is, and what the state is.
It might be surprising that I consider "rights" to be a term that is for slaves, and accordingly, a useless term if one is talking about freedom. I have made a video on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCBxJ1RUCmU
What I'm wondering is if you consider the very conception of property to be a state institution.
You continue on with examples:
"For example, if you take libertarianism to its extreme (anarcho-capitalism) you have no state at all, and everyone is supposed to be able to live the life they want to live right? Well that certainly sounds utopian! Speaking of utopian, lets talk about communists for a second, what if a bunch of people decide that they dont believe in capitalism, and are now communist. The stock answer anarcho-capitalists give is that they can start a commune. But how? Would they have to own the land first? Well how does that make sense? Theyre communists! They dont believe in property rights. So if they are going to live like communists, theres a good chance that they will impede on what you think are your property rights, without having a moral issue over it. If they cant be communist, then how can they live the life they want, and how can they be free? More importantly, how the FUCK is this anarchy?"
How do you define The State?
I define The State as an entity dependent on the involuntary taking of resources (taking people's resources without their consent) from a collective group; that is, dependent on taxation. The question that follows from this is akin to,
"So, when you have no God and no Objective Morality, everyone is supposed to just be able to live the life they want to live, right? Well what about the immorality this or the immorality that? Surely you don't want that. You can't live without God because then you'll have immorality -- it would certainly be Utopian to think you could be moral without God!"
And then you go onto, "don't believe in capitalism anymore" -- How do you define capitalism?* It sounds like you're using capitalism the way that I use corporatism, inwhichcase it is indeed a contradiction to say, Anarcho-Corporatism. It's a contradiction of terms, and I suspect that's what anti-capitalists means when they say that. But, I don't know. Perhaps we could get into a long discussion about that, with you focusing on how the proletariat are oppressed by corporations, and me agreeing with you, and trying to explain how using more regulation from The State doesn't solve the problem because corporations are in bed with The State, thereby making all regulations pointless, because they're bypassed by corporations through lobbying and the such. Corporations are nearly synonymous with The State, although that's more of a poetic term, and fringeelements does a better job of explaining this in
A Hundred Epiphanies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AScfnJfb-8
*I see capitalism as synonymous with "free market".
Communists see the problem of The State, but don't realize it's The State that's causing all of the problems, and so they advocate a tyranny of the many -- that is, everyone is The State, essentially. The means of production is owned in common, regardless the effort that the capitalist -- that is, the maker of the means of production, put into making the items. I'm not saying that the capitalist is more important than the workers, and indeed, after the initial making of the things, the capitalist has received his profit, and he will slowly start getting less and less of it because his innovation is being absorbed into the culture and competition equalizes his initial monopoly of being brilliant and having people be not used to the idea yet, since that he's making a lot of profit signals to others that it would be in their interest to also make that product, breaking the initial monopoly.
The rest of what you say in this part doesn't make any sense to me. I can mainly comment on the attitudes of communists, which is that they have a lot of cognitive dissonance and are biting the hand that feeds them -- namely, the employer and the means of production. If you take over someone else's work, what's the motivation to innovate and make more things? I'm not defending corporations here, which is unfortunately the universal current form of pretty much all businesses.
Onto the next part:
"In addition, what if I dont accept that purchasing something is a legitimate way of obtaining ownership(without addressing whether or not you DID purchase it in the first place, and whether or not the proof you have is legitimate)? am I just shit out of luck? The reason this matters is because anarcho capitalism and libertarianism advertise themselves as freedom, but as ive demonstrated, you have to be a a libertarian or a.capitalist to live in that society. We have two different protocols of ownership(or lack of) that cannot coexist with one and other."
If you don't accept that exchanging items of value for other things of value is a legitimate way to obtain items, then you're going to have to either make your own or have items given to you, although we're basically left with making everything yourself, since having items given to you likely falls under the category of illegitimate, unless it's done within a commune that you might be in (gifting culture, for example), although there might be disagreement between these such people, so that's an open question still. It is not impossible to live without exchanging items of value for other items of value. Hermits and other such people do this, have done this, and will continue to do this. It is one of many ways of doing things. I myself don't prefer it, and many others don't prefer it. I like the luxuries that I have, such as the computer I'm typing this on, and other things.
I don't understand how whatever anarcho-capitalism is jives against... Well, whatever. Simply put, communists are scary mofos who don't understand that they're being idiots.
"At this point it should be clear that the very right of owning property is merely a state institution(This explains to those who may not understand why, that anarchy is socialism, and not capitalism). Without government, nobody owns ANYTHING(thus defeating “anarcho”-capitalism)."
At this point it is clear to me that you need to read this post to you and respond to it so we can clarify where we stand in relation to each other. You've basically said what I asked in the beginning --
"What I'm wondering is if you consider the very conception of property to be a state institution."
The answer appears to be "yes".
And I suggest you watch fringeelements' A Hundred Epiphanies video.
Can you differentiate between people agreeing that someone owns something (inter-subjective consensus), or is everything a matter of The State?
I define ownership with homesteading, not legal tender that makes universal declarations that have absolutely no effort put into them.
"I own the moon,
Signed [some of my buddies]"
does not mean that I own the moon. And if you don't like that, fuck off? Again, watch fringe's video.
Actually, I'll continue on, since I'm guessing you'll refer to things further in on that blog post.
"The next topic i’d like to cover is on exploitation. This seems to be a common theme among those who decry capitalism, and for good reason!
Lets start with a less harmful version of it, and get the bloody stuff later. Would you do 8 dollars worth of work for 4 dollars, or how about 16 dollars worth of work for 4 dollars, 32? 64? No you say? Why not? Getting ripped off right? I mean, you COULD do it, but theres no real reason to do so. Lets imagine a scenario in which you sell food. You make the food, and you sell the food, but you dont own the business. You are paid 4 dollars an hour, and each food item costs 4 dollars. It should be noted that libertarians tend to believe in the profit motive, so with that being said your profit margins fall apart immediately upon selling any food item within one hour. The more you sell, the better the CEO does, but the worse you do. You still get paid 4 dollars, and their rate keeps growing, despite the fact that YOU are the one doing the work."
Who are you to say what people value?* Who are you to say that to someone starving, $4 is far better than $0 for not getting the job because of the EXPLOITATION of it, and so minimum wage is instated, since that job is worth, actually, $16, and so you're "protecting the workers" by not allowing them to work unless they get paid that minimum amount? Result? They don't get hired!
Without minimum wage, when they do get hired for that Exploitative amount, they get a more comfortable life, start checking around for better jobs, and soon the employers need to offer better stuffs -- usually a higher wage -- to keep them around.
*I'm being facetious. I hate that phrase, "Who are you to...?"
With corporations, however (which pretty much all businesses today are, btw), they can get bailouts from The State to keep up running, and the minimum wage laws mean they simply keep switching out people (because they get better at the job and therefore can reasonably ask for more pay, which is how they then improve their lot in life, as explained before), and so the burden of what you thought you were putting on them - the businesses - actually ends up making things worse for the workers.
"One may argue that the CEO’s job is more difficult, and thus its more valued. However, how could the business survive without the people who make and sell it? Technically speaking, the business could survive longer without a ceo, just selling and making food with everyone getting a cut. Maybe it wouldnt be as efficient, but a CEO alone cannot make a business work."
Explained above.
"after the initial making of the things, the capitalist has received his profit, and he will slowly start getting less and less of it because his innovation is being absorbed into the culture and competition equalizes his initial monopoly of being brilliant and having people be not used to the idea yet[. S]ince he's making a lot of profit[, that] signals to others that it would be in their interest to also make that product, breaking the initial monopoly."
(slightly redone because I realized I phrased it slightly poorly)
"Now onto the bloody stuff. This is a main reason why I abandoned libertarianism in favor of socialism. Lets say you own property, and you live next to a rich person, and I do mean rich, I mean fucking rich. This rich guy wants your land, he hates you, he hates the fact that you throw parties in the middle of the night, he hates your loud dog, whatever. Now under libertarianism, theres technically nothing he can do about this, or is there? Considering that hes “fucking” rich, he could simply buy the land around you forcing you to stay on your property, which essentially makes you a prisoner. This can result in two conclusions:"
Interesting scenario.
Wait... how are you a prisoner again? "Forcing you to stay on your property"... how is that resultant from "buy the land around you"? Why can't you leave? You can't cross his property? My guess is your answer is pointing to the piece of paper - he bought it and he can enforce you not going on his property; that anarchists or whatever support violently enforcing property rights? Rights come from The State, and thus are a contradiction to the anarchists/anti-statitist/blahblahblah ideology. I quite agree that there is a lot of cognitive dissonance for/from anarchists on this.
"also, an employer can fire you for any reason under the sun."
Mhm:
"With corporations, however (which pretty much all businesses today are, btw), they can get bailouts from The State to keep up running, and the minimum wage laws mean they simply keep switching out people (because they get better at the job and therefore can reasonably ask for more pay, which is how they then improve their lot in life, as explained before), and so the burden of what you thought you were putting on them - the businesses - actually ends up making things worse for the workers."
No comments:
Post a Comment