Anarcho-capitalist libertarianism

[Edwardo Piet]

The world isn't fair, true, but systems that we set up given the contraints we live under can be.

In what sense? For a system to be completely 'fair' I would have thought it would have to completely abolish the 'unfairness'? If it is only merely able to reduce it somewhat (and not that much even, in the sense that there's always plenty of unfairness even in the most 'fair' situations) - then doesn't that mean it is only partly 'fair'? And is at least partly, unfair? What is a fair system?

Capitalism is fair because you are paid for the work you do. Work in a more skilled job and you'll get a higher level of pay.

But some are in a much better position to benefit from that system than others - so how is that fair?

Supply and demand is entirely natural within the human race, and Capitalism works by rewarding those who balance the two.

And for it to be fair it would have to be fair to those who aren't able to benefit from it. But those who aren't able to benefit are just unlucky, as I explained above. So no I don't see how it's 'not unfair'.

No, it doesn't depend on anything. Either people can choose what they do with the money that *they alone* have earned, or they can't. I believe that people should be able to choose.

Well they should be able to choose because that's moral, but they also should give if they morally should because they can afford it so easily. So I'm merely arguing that I don't understand how the system is "fair" even if it is the 'most fair'.

Furthermore, although 'they alone' earned it in the sense that no one earned it for them... they got their money through luck as I argued above. Because everything is down to luck the way I see it since there is no free will. It's all genetics and environment, so they're just lucky and it would be good if we all did our bit to help those who need it the most so it's all rather confusing to me. I am merely arguing that I don't see how it is "not unfair".

It doesn't matter what is best for all...people obviously disagree on what that is.

People obviously disagree since morals are subjective. But that doesn't mean that we can't have our own opinions on what is best for all as you and me do. Surely you think that Capitalism rather than socialism is, on the whole, best for all? I think that it may indeed be but I certainly don't argue that it is "fair".

I support utilitarianism - maximized happiness for all overall, it is utility that is moral as far as I'm concerned. I can support utilitarianism and think that it "matters" despite the fact many will disagree with me of course.

It should come down to a personal choice, and I think more people would choose to give to charity in a Libertarian society than any other, given the freedoms that come with such a society.

Maybe so. But I don't think it is "fair" because some people are in a better position to benefit than others, the system is more beneficial to some than others. For Capitalism to be truly fair wouldn't it have to stop all the unfairness? Which is of course wayyy too idealistic and unrealistic to happen - the best it can get is being "more fair" than other systems... it's still fair from "fair" in my view. As I argued above, I think it's all down to luck really.

Morally, but not necessarily. People have an ability to override their morals; some of us feel bad about it afterwards, some of us don't. However it still stands that forcing someone down a particular moral path is not the way to go. Part of being in a free society is the ability to choose who and what to give to everyone.

So it is better than an unfree society, certainly. But it's still not a wholly 'fair' society as far as I'm concerned. I don't think such a thing can exist. Because so long as we are all individuals all in our own (if only slightly different) situations, everything ultimately down to genetics and environment, to luck, no rules can really be all encompassing and wholly "fair" to such differences (that all come about, ultimately, by luck insofar as I can tell).

That is a bullshit argument. If one wishes to live in a society, they mut abide by society's rules. The choice to follow society's rules has already been made by their wish to be a member of that society. Disobeying laws has consequences,[...]

Yes, disobeying laws have consequences. But if people couldn't choose to break the laws then there never would be any disobeying. People can choose to disobey. Naturally, yes, at least the vast majority of people would not like such consequences. But I am merely arguing that personal choice is still there (even if it's unfree, as I think it is) even if one of the choices were made illegal. That's how revolution happens isn't it?

A shame? Yes. A right? Yes. What you do with your money is of no business to the state.

Yes. But my point is that I don't see how this is a fair system. Some people are lucky enough to get their money (because even hard work comes about through luck if it's all ultimately down to genetics and environment, to luck as said above) and then some of those people won't even be moral about it. Yes it's their right. But is it fair? No I don't think so, it's unfair that some are so much more or less lucky or unlucky than others anyway. It may slightly closer to fair than any other system (or even a lot closer) but ultimately no system can be all-encompassing enough to be "fair" the way I see it, the world is way too messy (too much of a mess!) for that.

As for the unfair question again, I covered it above. It is perfectly fair given the constraints we have to live in.

Not just fair, but "perfectly" fair even? As close as we can get you mean? Even though, surely, it is still really far from fair considering as it's supposed to be fair to all when some are in so much better positions to benefit from it and some are even able to exploit the system corruptly (as with all systems, others more so than capitalism maybe - which is my point that no system is really "fair").

If you argue that the world is always unfair, and so everything else is, then the word becomes meaningless.

Maybe that is the case though?

Use it in the proper context, and capitalism is a fair system.

Well if by fairer than other systems you mean fair, then fine. But I still don't see how it itself is really "fair" when those who benefit from it are - ultimately - just lucky and those who don't are just unlucky (as with all systems due to the way the world is it seems to me, Nature and Nurture, that's it).

I'd like to believe that Capitialism or any other system was fair. But I'd only wish to believe it correctly if it were true and sadly it doesn't seem to be true to me, the world is just plain fucked up. Those who enjoy their time here are just more fucking lucky than those who don't - sadly it seems that is the way it is, whatever the system.

Since I think morality is utility... I support utilitarianism, I think that there is no real justice in the world as in "deserving" anything good or bad.... it's just good if there was more happiness and less suffering, etc.

EvF