11 ms·

so, against the government and against big business? what's left then? and, awesome how his stance is ultimately self-defeating as any other political directio

so, against the government and against big business? what's left then? and, awesome how his stance is ultimately self-defeating as any other political direction/movement will embrace the organisation of a big construct. libertarians and anarchists are adorable.

jessaustin 11y ago
against the government and against big business? what's left then? You ask that as if you're referring to two different things.
- Frondo 11y ago
  They are two different things. The government is theoretically accountable to all citizens, and conducts orderly and regularly scheduled changes of power. Big businesses are theoretically accountable to their owners and no one else.
  - mfringel 11y ago
    More specifically, large businesses are accountable to owners with sufficiently large stakes. It's harder to buy votes in government.
  - adventured 11y ago
    Big businesses are also accountable to the jurisdiction and laws of the nation they operate under. In the US, the federal government has universal power over corporations due to thousands of economic regulations, to go with even more powerful national powers related to the IRS, DHS, national security and justice department. To the extent a corporation's home nation has enforced laws and regulations, the corporation must operate within that framework. Try being Microsoft, raise a heavily armed militia in the US and start storming people's homes and threatening politicians, and see what happens to you. The US Government can easily destroy any big business they choose to. They can attack it from dozens of angles. They can compel compliance to programs the corporations do not agree with, which has occurred to eg Yahoo and others with NSA spying. There is still no such thing as a a big non-based corporation, one without an actual home country. There isn't a single actual example of it today.
nileshtrivedi 11y ago
> what's left then? Small governments and small businesses, that can participate in the game but don't have enough power to change the rules of the game.
- blumkvist 11y ago
  Thinking this is a viable solution fails to take into account any practicalities and the nature of man itself.
  - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
    Many past events seemed unviable at some point of time, yet they happened.
    - blumkvist 11y ago
      The wretchedness of men is timeless.
gweinberg 11y ago
The individual.
- blumkvist 11y ago
  Where all individuals are equal, but some are more equal than others?
  - drdeca 11y ago
    I don't understand what you mean by this? I mean, you are paraphrasing Animal Farm, (but substituting "individual" for "animal" ) , and in doing so you seem to be, suggesting that, libertarianism(?) claims to treat people equally, but doesn't actually do so? Please clarify, as right now it just looks like a quip.
asgard1024 11y ago
I kinda agree with you, and I think it's unfair you're getting downvoted by fundamentalists. I don't understand the libertarian stance either. They are against concentration and misuse of power (big business and government), which I can relate to, to an extent. But at the same time, they seem unwilling to help or even compromise with the other people who are getting screwed (which is often a majority). Specifically, they don't want to support poor in any way, and are often against democracy. Now I sympathize with the cause, but why should I (politically, economically) help/support person (a libertarian) that is unwilling to help/support me? It doesn't make any sense, in fact it sounds as a fishy proposition, where I am gonna get screwed (though at least I appreciate the honesty). I'd be happy to hear from libertarians how is this supposed to work - why should I support you? Is your system going to help me when I am in trouble and how? (Or don't forget to downvote me as a signal that you don't want to have a tough but mature discussion about your precious beliefs.)
- burntsushi 11y ago
  I am, at least, philosophically libertarian. But I'm not an activist and don't participate in electoral politics. Here's the first problem: the word "libertarian" is a huge umbrella term that encompasses many different philosophies. Reasonable uses of word go from "fuck you, got mine" all the way to "no coercion, please." I've seen plenty of folks self identify on various parts of this spectrum, so I'm not even including derogatory senses of the word. And of course, many would consider this to be a "right wing" usurpation of the word from traditional leftists. So despite the broad spectrum, one could still consider it wrong in a variety of ways. With that said, I personally identify close to "no coercion, please." Notably, I largely see this as entirely orthogonal to what it means to help others. In contrast, "fuck you, got mine," is a clear statement that "helping others" is to be looked down upon, and that those who are poor are weak or lazy. The "no coercion, please" is also easy to conflate with "don't help others" because such a position often entails an argument in favor of defunding or abolishing many of the social welfare programs we see today. Often, this argument is made without any attempt at providing an alternative, so it's easily dismissed by conscientious individuals. However, many of these arguments are not based on the proposition that the poor are weak or that helping others is somehow bad, but rather, that these social welfare programs are predicated on the use of force (as us libertarians see it, which is not necessarily how others see it, because certainly not all people think that taxation is coercive, but I certainly see it that way). Since they are predicated on the use of force, they are generally incompatible with libertarian philosophy. However, the part where social welfare programs help people is, to me, not incompatible at all with libertarian philosophy. For example, there are uncountably many privately run charities in the world. These are of course organized voluntarily, and are therefore compatible with libertarian philosophy. Naturally, this turns the discussion toward "well private charities provide no guarantees to help folks in need." And yes, that is true. But now you've arrived to the heart of the matter: the only way to provide a "guarantee" is to use coercion. (I personally don't think of this as a guarantee, but government institutions certainly have an air of longevity and stability that isn't often associated with private organizations, so I can understand the sentiment.) I largely see this as a trade off between freedom and security. Freedom means there are no guarantees; folks in need will only get help if there are others willing to give it. For me personally, I cannot ethically abide coercion, ever. This probably makes me an absolutist. Of course, in real life, my pragmatism takes over. I don't mind being an absolutist in theory. ;-)

jessaustin 11y ago

against the government and against big business? what's left then? You ask that as if you're referring to two different things.

Frondo 11y ago
They are two different things. The government is theoretically accountable to all citizens, and conducts orderly and regularly scheduled changes of power. Big businesses are theoretically accountable to their owners and no one else.
- mfringel 11y ago
  More specifically, large businesses are accountable to owners with sufficiently large stakes. It's harder to buy votes in government.
- adventured 11y ago
  Big businesses are also accountable to the jurisdiction and laws of the nation they operate under. In the US, the federal government has universal power over corporations due to thousands of economic regulations, to go with even more powerful national powers related to the IRS, DHS, national security and justice department. To the extent a corporation's home nation has enforced laws and regulations, the corporation must operate within that framework. Try being Microsoft, raise a heavily armed militia in the US and start storming people's homes and threatening politicians, and see what happens to you. The US Government can easily destroy any big business they choose to. They can attack it from dozens of angles. They can compel compliance to programs the corporations do not agree with, which has occurred to eg Yahoo and others with NSA spying. There is still no such thing as a a big non-based corporation, one without an actual home country. There isn't a single actual example of it today.

nileshtrivedi 11y ago

> what's left then? Small governments and small businesses, that can participate in the game but don't have enough power to change the rules of the game.

blumkvist 11y ago
Thinking this is a viable solution fails to take into account any practicalities and the nature of man itself.
- nileshtrivedi 11y ago
  Many past events seemed unviable at some point of time, yet they happened.
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    The wretchedness of men is timeless.

gweinberg 11y ago

The individual.

blumkvist 11y ago
Where all individuals are equal, but some are more equal than others?
- drdeca 11y ago
  I don't understand what you mean by this? I mean, you are paraphrasing Animal Farm, (but substituting "individual" for "animal" ) , and in doing so you seem to be, suggesting that, libertarianism(?) claims to treat people equally, but doesn't actually do so? Please clarify, as right now it just looks like a quip.

asgard1024 11y ago

I kinda agree with you, and I think it's unfair you're getting downvoted by fundamentalists. I don't understand the libertarian stance either. They are against concentration and misuse of power (big business and government), which I can relate to, to an extent. But at the same time, they seem unwilling to help or even compromise with the other people who are getting screwed (which is often a majority). Specifically, they don't want to support poor in any way, and are often against democracy. Now I sympathize with the cause, but why should I (politically, economically) help/support person (a libertarian) that is unwilling to help/support me? It doesn't make any sense, in fact it sounds as a fishy proposition, where I am gonna get screwed (though at least I appreciate the honesty). I'd be happy to hear from libertarians how is this supposed to work - why should I support you? Is your system going to help me when I am in trouble and how? (Or don't forget to downvote me as a signal that you don't want to have a tough but mature discussion about your precious beliefs.)

burntsushi 11y ago
I am, at least, philosophically libertarian. But I'm not an activist and don't participate in electoral politics. Here's the first problem: the word "libertarian" is a huge umbrella term that encompasses many different philosophies. Reasonable uses of word go from "fuck you, got mine" all the way to "no coercion, please." I've seen plenty of folks self identify on various parts of this spectrum, so I'm not even including derogatory senses of the word. And of course, many would consider this to be a "right wing" usurpation of the word from traditional leftists. So despite the broad spectrum, one could still consider it wrong in a variety of ways. With that said, I personally identify close to "no coercion, please." Notably, I largely see this as entirely orthogonal to what it means to help others. In contrast, "fuck you, got mine," is a clear statement that "helping others" is to be looked down upon, and that those who are poor are weak or lazy. The "no coercion, please" is also easy to conflate with "don't help others" because such a position often entails an argument in favor of defunding or abolishing many of the social welfare programs we see today. Often, this argument is made without any attempt at providing an alternative, so it's easily dismissed by conscientious individuals. However, many of these arguments are not based on the proposition that the poor are weak or that helping others is somehow bad, but rather, that these social welfare programs are predicated on the use of force (as us libertarians see it, which is not necessarily how others see it, because certainly not all people think that taxation is coercive, but I certainly see it that way). Since they are predicated on the use of force, they are generally incompatible with libertarian philosophy. However, the part where social welfare programs help people is, to me, not incompatible at all with libertarian philosophy. For example, there are uncountably many privately run charities in the world. These are of course organized voluntarily, and are therefore compatible with libertarian philosophy. Naturally, this turns the discussion toward "well private charities provide no guarantees to help folks in need." And yes, that is true. But now you've arrived to the heart of the matter: the only way to provide a "guarantee" is to use coercion. (I personally don't think of this as a guarantee, but government institutions certainly have an air of longevity and stability that isn't often associated with private organizations, so I can understand the sentiment.) I largely see this as a trade off between freedom and security. Freedom means there are no guarantees; folks in need will only get help if there are others willing to give it. For me personally, I cannot ethically abide coercion, ever. This probably makes me an absolutist. Of course, in real life, my pragmatism takes over. I don't mind being an absolutist in theory. ;-)