Anarcho-capitalist libertarianism

[Minimalist]

"capitalism done right"

And when has "capitalism" ever been "done right?"


What is your model?

[Autumnlicious]

"capitalism done right"

And when has "capitalism" ever been "done right?"


What is your model?

It exists within his head and he is sure someone, somewhere has written up a perfect model of "capitalism".

[Rhizomorph13]

I had a perfect model of capitalism but unfortunately it was shipped without some of the more important pieces, such as how to prevent colusion between corporations, and capatilistic motivations for safe elimination of externalities.

[Tiberius]

Capitalism Kills.

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.

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.

Capitalism on the other hand, has no such history. Yes, the poor and unskilled get paid less, and for good reason (they don't have skills that are worth anything more). However the skilled workers (who can come from any background) can advance, get better careers, and create jobs to give to the poorer workers. Does this mean that some are rich whilst others are poor? Yes. Is this unfair? Hell no. What is unfair is telling people who have worked to earn their money that they must give it to the poor. That should be a matter of personal choice. 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.

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.

I'm more of a Libertarian socialist

When Adrian gets here you might need that suit

An oxymoron and a half. Libertarian means far more than "small government", and in any case, I'd be hard pushed to find a small government way to implementing socialism. You chuck the ideas of freedom that come with Libertarianism out of the window when you append the word "socialist".

[fr0d0]

An example of Capitalisms evil is the slave trade where children are stolen and sold to work on sugar cane farms with 18" machetes and razor sharp plants to deal with who subsequently suffer cuts, amputations and death with not much human comfort let alone schooling. This happens to fuel higher profits.

http://www.stopthetraffik.org/news/press/press.aspx

[Shinylight]

I'm more of a Libertarian socialist

When Adrian gets here you might need that suit

An oxymoron and a half. Libertarian means far more than "small government", and in any case, I'd be hard pushed to find a small government way to implementing socialism. You chuck the ideas of freedom that come with Libertarianism out of the window when you append the word "socialist".

Libertarian Socialism is a name for many economic and political ideologies , not just Minarchism.

It contains Mutualistic theories as well as Syndicalistic.

Both of these support the rights and liberty of workers. Anarcho-Syndicalism supports the use of Direct Action to make political changes such as electing a representative in the Government, an extremely libertarian way of making changes.

[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

[Tiberius]

An example of Capitalisms evil is the slave trade where children are stolen and sold to work on sugar cane farms with 18" machetes and razor sharp plants to deal with who subsequently suffer cuts, amputations and death with not much human comfort let alone schooling. This happens to fuel higher profits.

http://www.stopthetraffik.org/news/press/press.aspx

A pathetic attempt at an argument fr0d0...I'd usually expect better from you. Capitalism involves paying workers for the work they do in accordance to the value of the work they do. Slavery is the very antithesis of Capitalism.

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.

The world isn't fair, true, but systems that we set up given the contraints we live under can be. 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. Supply and demand is entirely natural within the human race, and Capitalism works by rewarding those who balance the two.

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.

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. If you get a load of super-rich people deciding not to give money to the poor, they will be considered nasty people by society (in the same way socialists view all rich people). It doesn't matter what is best for all...people obviously disagree on what that is. 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.

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.

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.

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).

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, and since I do not think many would prefer to go to jail over paying a welfare tax, it is forced upon people. The only way to avoid it is to leave the society, which in most instances cannot be done easily.

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'.

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

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.

Precisely, which is my point that if you take away institutionalised welfare, it will spring up in the form of charity. More people will give (since more people have more to give) for the sake of being human. Some won't, and they may do it for various reasons, but the difference between capitalism and socialism here is that socialism operates under the delusion that people are all nice (and so has to enforce such policies against the actual will of the people), whilst capitalism allows people to choose. Those who actually are nice (and they'd probably include all the socialists too) would give their money to charity in order to fund private welfare, and those who are nasty wouldn't.

As for the unfair question again, I covered it above. It is perfectly fair given the constraints we have to live in. If you argue that the world is always unfair, and so everything else is, then the word becomes meaningless. Use it in the proper context, and capitalism is a fair system.

[Dotard]

Just curious here.

Adrian;

You've said elsewhere on this forum you are a student and you do not work.

Who pays the bills? You live rent free? If so, why/how?

Need medical care/treatment? You don't work so who pays when you need to see a doctor?

How do you eat? Who pays for that or do you eat on the charity of others? How about clothing? Donated stuffs? If not, who pays for your clothing? Who keeps your internet connection up?

How do you supply your basic needs if you don't work?

[Tiberius]

There are things called loans. I am currently in debt by around £30,000. That covers my course fees and money I spend on maintenance (living costs, etc). My father currently pays for my accommodation.