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

[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

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.

It encapsulates capitalism for me. Any good ferenghi will tell you you make as much profit as you can as quickly as you can. that's what outsourcing to 3rd world countries is all about. Why do you think all companies take this route if it isn't in their interest? Yes slavery is an extreme example... but that's what business wants... it's only people interested in fairness who force capitalists to be reasonable, as in this case. No way would Nestle or Cadbury have budged if lobbying didn't hurt their profits. Slaves are paid.

[Tiberius]

No, slavery is a stupid example. Any good capitalist will tell you that you make as much profit as you can, whilst paying your workers what their work is worth. No work is worth absolutely nothing, and all work is worth as much as the workers are willing to work for it. If a company pays too little, no worker will work for that company.

By your argument, a company would out-source all its work, but they don't. Surely doing this would be a good way to make the most profit? Of course, people like you ignore the fact that businesses are not evil; they are made up of humans just like you and me. I used to work for one of the biggest banks in the world, and despite the fact it was my first job (and I had no prior work experience), they gave me a great salary for the work I did. At the end of it, they gave every member of staff 100 shares each. They had no obligation to do so; they did it because there are mutual agreements between the company executives and the general staff. If a company keeps its staff happy, the company does well.

[Dotard]

If a company pays too little, no worker will work for that company.

Bullshit. There are plenty of hungry people that will line up for whatever meger crumbs are offered. We tried that "let's not work for those cheap bastards" approach here in the southern (deep) United States. Doesn't work. Know why? Too many hungry people south of the border trampling over themselves to happily take the meger crumbs.

By your argument, a company would out-source all its work, but they don't.

Really? Guess you haven't seen USAA lately. Come and tour their main offices here in San Antonio Texas. You'd swear the plane landed in India and not the U.S. Halliburton anybody? How about KBR? They just uprooted and relocated in Dubai. Many companys do outsource a majority of their workers solely for the purposes of inflating that bottom line and fuck the general populous. You really think a company has any interest in paying their front-line workers enough to (in your words) 'get rich' and possibly become their competition?

Surely doing this would be a good way to make the most profit?

Which is why they do it.

I used to work for one of the biggest banks in the world, and despite the fact it was my first job (and I had no prior work experience), they gave me a great salary for the work I did. At the end of it, they gave every member of staff 100 shares each. They had no obligation to do so;

Yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah.... Your ancedotal evidence is meaningless here. I can sit here and cite examples of corporate evil doings just as well as you can cite examples of corporate love.

[Tiberius]

Bullshit. There are plenty of hungry people that will line up for whatever meger crumbs are offered. We tried that "let's not work for those cheap bastards" approach here in the southern (deep) United States. Doesn't work. Know why? Too many hungry people south of the border trampling over themselves to happily take the meger crumbs.

Indeed, there will be many people who take low paid jobs so that they can afford food, but that wasn't my argument. No company can survive by paying abysmal amounts to the skilled worker, since no skilled worker would ever work for such a company. There will always been people who can only do menial work, and there will always be those (for whatever reason) who have skills that allow them to work for high salaries. My point still stands, if a company pays too little, no worker will work for that company.

Really? Guess you haven't seen USAA lately. Come and tour their main offices here in San Antonio Texas. You'd swear the plane landed in India and not the U.S. Halliburton anybody? How about KBR? They just uprooted and relocated in Dubai. Many companys do outsource a majority of their workers solely for the purposes of inflating that bottom line and fuck the general populous. You really think a company has any interest in paying their front-line workers enough to (in your words) 'get rich' and possibly become their competition?

That isn't outsourcing all it's work. Learn to read points before you try to rebut them. In any case, surely these companies are creating jobs for the people in India? You socialists have a very distorted view of fairness: "Companies should be creating jobs for people! Oh wait...they are? Shit...well, they should only create jobs for people in MY country!". So what is your solution? Make sure that a company can't hire foreigners, and fuck the Indian people whom they currently employ?

A company has an interest in paying a competitive salary to its workers so they don't look for other jobs. It may surprise you, but a company actually needs employees to get stuff done. If your competitor is offering more money for the same job, your employee may leave your company for theirs. Companies not only have to try and make the most profit, but they have to balance that with providing an attractive environment for their employees.

Which is why they do it.

Not all of them, and certainly not all of the work. I'm fine with globalisation, it's creating jobs in other countries. Why shouldn't a company be able to hire people in other countries? Give me a good reason.

Yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah.... Your ancedotal evidence is meaningless here. I can sit here and cite examples of corporate evil doings just as well as you can cite examples of corporate love.

My anecdotal evidence doesn't serve to enforce my point, no, but it certainly rallies against yours (and others) that all companies are evil and want nothing more than to treat their employees like slaves. Companies like this aren't exceptions to the rule, they are the rule. I've spoken with entrepreneurs, business owners, and general employees from a multitude of different companies, all of which have loved the work they do, and the salary they do it for. The vast majority of businesses aren't involved in scandals, but of course only scandal in business seems to make the news these days.

[fr0d0]

You pay for what you need. If you can get what you want cheaper, a business will go for that. Show me proof where that isn't the case. It's certainly not hard to find evidence of the opposite.

Slavery isn't free, it comes at some cost. You have to keep your slaves alive at least. Or enough of them alive. It's economics. Just because the work you did was economical for the bank at the time... doesn't make that the economic rule, otherwise banks wouldn't outsource telephone support and sales overseas. They do that because that's the best value to them.

Banks didn't rob us all of billions because they were trying to pay their workers a good wage. They did it because there was more profit to be made.

[Tiberius]

I've never denied this. For some reason you think I do, and I have no idea why that is. You continually misrepresent my case for capitalism. Capitalism creates jobs, and you even admit this when you complain about outsourcing. Why complain? As far as I can tell, it's because you don't like the idea that the company is turning down labour at home for cheaper labour abroad.

If you aren't going to address my actual points and insist on creating elaborate scenarios involving slavery (which has nothing to do with my views on capitalism...as you well know) then we are finished discussing. This is a thread on anarcho-capitalist libertarianism; libertarianism operates under specific freedoms, one of which involves the protection of liberties (which includes protection against slavery). The others focus on the protection of life, and the protection of an individual's prosperity. If a capitalist system is being used to enhance slavery, it is not anarcho-capitalist libertarianism by definition.

[fr0d0]

If you don't deny it, then why argue it? You quote extreme socialism back at us, why is that? I'm undecided on cheaper labour from abroad. Exploitation is more the point where capitalism is concerned. And I don't care how you want to wrap it up, it's all greed to me.

[Violet]

This is a thread on anarcho-capitalist libertarianism; libertarianism operates under specific freedoms, one of which involves the protection of liberties (which includes protection against slavery). The others focus on the protection of life, and the protection of an individual's prosperity. If a capitalist system is being used to enhance slavery, it is not anarcho-capitalist libertarianism by definition.

Anarcho ≠ anarchy?

If it is anarchy, then there are no regulations in the entire system. There is no concern with social justice in libertarianism (as per my dictionary, see

The adherents of libertarianism believe that private morality is not the state's affair and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution, which arguably harm no one but the participants, should not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism, although it is generally associated more with the political right (chiefly in the U.S.). Unlike traditional liberalism, however, libertarianism lacks a concern with social justice.

.

Are you, or are you not, using anarcho to mean anarchy? Are you, or are you not, using libertarianism to mean "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."? It appears that you are arguing simply for the abolishment of regulations... but then you have told us that laws (which are regulations, and in our countries (US, UK) socially derived) supersede business actions... and you simply can't have them both at once (no regulations and laws). Would you like to explain how you figure it is possible to have them both at once?

I hope we all understand what you mean by capitalism... considering that we are constantly arguing socialism vs capitalism of late.

[Minimalist]

Fuck. Fuck. Double Fuck.

You guys have put me in the position of agreeing with Frodo!!


"God damn you all to hell"
- Charlton Heston.



BTW, still waiting for the model I asked for.