Anarcho-capitalist libertarianism

[Edwardo Piet]

I have no idea how an economic theory can kill. Economic theories can be implemented in such a way that a number of people die, yes, but I'd argue that is more in the implementation than the theory.

I agree there.

Socialism could be implemented well, but only in a society where everyone isn't fueled by greed and where people are perfectly willing to not earn a decent amount for the work they do. Since no such society exists (only in the minds of socialists), every implementation so far has involved enforcement of such policies, which usually end up with a lot of resistance, followed by the systematic murder of that resistance, and the oppression of anyone who gets in their way.

I agree, that's just not how the world is. There's way too much greed in the world to go about acting as if there isn't.

[...] Does this mean that some are rich whilst others are poor? Yes. Is this unfair? Hell no.

I really don't think it's as simple as that.

Those who get rich get it through a combination of a lot of hard work and skill, and also a bit of luck. But even the hard work they apply, all there own actions altogether, any of their skill(s) whatsoever, ultimately comes down entirely to luck in my mind. Nature and nurture. Genetics and environment. Since I don't believe in 'Free Will' I think anyone who has it good is ultimately, lucky, and anyone who has it bad is ultimately, unlucky. Some people indeed work harder than others and 'earn' a living. But they are only able to do so because of their situation, their genetics and environment, etc. And all their actions and feelings and... thoughts comes down entirely to that. So really I don't think anyone truly 'deserves' anything, be it good or bad, positive or negative (since I don't believe in an incompatibilist version of Free Will - it naturally seems like the correct moral conclusion). As sad and fucked up as that seems, I think it is true. As an ideal I support Utilitarianism since retribution in and of itself is immoral without Free Will in my mind. Retribution is only moral if more good than bad comes out of it. I believe morality is ultimately about utility.

And whilst I agree with you that capitalism may work better than socialism indeed - I disagree that either is fair. The world isn't fair and, realistically, I don't think it ever will be. I don't think it even can be - people are all too different in too different situations the world is just randomness+natural laws to moderate that 'randomness' (well, it's probabilistic really), and that's that.

What is unfair is telling people who have worked to earn their money that they must give it to the poor.

I think that depends on 1. How rich they are, how much they can afford it and 2. How poor the poor are. If you get a super rich person who doesn't give anything whatsoever to those who are so much worse off than him, it is indeed his 'choice' but I think it would be moral and better for everybody overall that in such a case he/she gave a bit of their money away. It's what is best for all that matters I think.

I think someone who is an ex-lifeguard and quite easily has the chance to save someone's life when they are drowning 'should' do so. And if they instead not give a fuck and let someone drown because it's not their job any more and nothing in it for them, that may not be illegal and may be a personal 'choice'. But I still think that since they can 'afford it' so easily then, morally, they should help.

That should be a matter of personal choice.

And it is. Even if it were made so he/she was 'forced' to give some money away, it's still a matter of personal 'choice'. Because one can 'choose' to disobey laws even. (Whether that 'choice' is 'free' or not is another matter of course).

In a world without government control of the economy, you would still have the people who support such ideas, but they would be in private charity. People who think sharing their wealth is a good idea would be free to do so, and people who would not have no obligation.

I think that it is a shame that those who give their money away to charities would end up less well off (on average) than those who do not and keep the money, greedily, to themselves. Since the greedy misers who keep it to themselves are not obligated because it is their 'personal ( at least somewhat immoral in my mind (depending on how easily they can afford it)) choice'.

There is a reason why the vast majority of the most wealthy are philanthropists. We are all human; we would all prefer not to see people suffer, but part of being human is the ability to choose, and we should all have the choice about what we do with our money.

Well the extremely wealthy can easily afford to give so much of it away (and furthermore, they've been rich so they may realize that although it's great, it's perhaps not as great as many think and maybe wealth is a little overrated. Furthermore see the Hedonic Treadmill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill). And also, such people will be surely hated by the public if they kept it all to themselves. There are plenty of super-rich people who are good people, but there are also plenty of extremely poor, unlucky (see above) people who are also good people they just don't have the cash to show such 'great sums' of generosity.

So as to "Is this unfair? Hell no." of course it is, the world is always unfair. To be fair people would have to be in exactly the same situation and be exactly the same person in fact therefore. Nothing is truly 'fair' and in fact I think it's all down to luck ultimately for reasons above.

EvF