4 ms·

Part of the philosophy of libertarianism is the idea that if you allow people to cooperate (eg: build a community) they will advance faster... and looking at wh

by MCRed 11y ago

Part of the philosophy of libertarianism is the idea that if you allow people to cooperate (eg: build a community) they will advance faster... and looking at what happened in China and India when those countries legalized capitalism, the libertarians have a good point. This is, of course, an economic perspective, but the history of economics generally agrees with them.

vacri 11y ago
Capitalism is not a binary state. Chinese capitalism is not American capitalism is not Western European capitalism. Herein is one of the huge problems of libertarianism - there's no space for shades of gray. Everything is an absolute, a binary; either something is or something isn't, but the real world doesn't work that way. Some capitalism is good. Unfettered capitalism is not - the libertarian cry of "well if someone wrongs you, then sue them for damages in court" is all but useless. You may not even know which chemical company was poisoning the air you have been breathing for 10 years that caused your illness, but libertarians wouldn't restrict the company's actions ahead of time; apparently a monetary settlement (that of course an individual will be able to force a large company into settling in courts...) is always an appropriate solution. Hell, one libertarian I was talking to was suggesting privatising courts, and saying that the courts would be paid on performance. Somehow he thought that would mean the courts would be fair, rather than heavily biased to the private entity providing the paycheck. So, we'd end up with a system where the only restriction on capitalism would be actions performed well after the fact. We've seen what happens when profit motives are unfettered, and it's not pretty.
- burntsushi 11y ago
  > So, we'd end up with a system where the only restriction on capitalism would be actions performed well after the fact. Why is that a problem specific to capitalism? What system of justice prevents everything up front? As long as justice is somewhat predictable, others can plan based on what will happen to them. For example, we are currently in a system where the only restriction on murder is an action performed well after the fact (e.g., prison). > Herein is one of the huge problems of libertarianism - there's no space for shades of gray. That's not how I see it. Markets are one big shade of gray. There's nothing absolute about them at all.
  - vacri 11y ago
    > Why is that a problem specific to capitalism? Libertarians argue against regulations, which are restrictions in place ahead of time. I find it disturbing that you are oblivious to that, even though you're responding to a comment which mentions air quality as an issue. As it stands, government regulations limit air pollution. Libertarians would remove those regulations and move the onus onto individuals to prove their cases in court. > What system of justice prevents everything up front? Where did I say 'everything'? This is exactly what I mean by libertarianism has no shades of gray. > Markets are one big shade of gray. 'Unpredictability' is not the gray we're talking about here.
    - burntsushi 11y ago
      > Libertarians argue against regulations, which are restrictions in place ahead of time. Regulations typically impose penalties for breaking them. People don't want to pay the penalty, so they don't break them. > Where did I say 'everything'? This is exactly what I mean by libertarianism has no shades of gray. My point is that you're lodging a criticism against libertarianism that isn't actually specific to libertarianism.
      - vacri 11y ago
        > Regulations... That is some seriously twisted logic to turn 'regulations' into 'restrictions implemented after the event'. > My point is that you're lodging a criticism against libertarianism... What other system wants to strip away all regulations? My criticisms would apply equally to those as well.
        burntsushi 11y ago
        > That is some seriously twisted logic to turn 'regulations' into 'restrictions implemented after the event'. I don't really understand where your confusion is coming from. Regulations usually take the form of, "X is now illegal. If you do X, you will be punished with Y." It's pretty uninteresting if you ask me. People then avoid doing X because they don't want to be punished by Y. Say a new regulation is passed that says dumping waste in the local river is illegal. Governments don't then station officials watching every corner of the river preventing waste from being dumped. People can still dump if they want. But if they're caught, they now face a potentially severe penalty. There is very little difference from how regulations fundamentally operate than how other laws function. "Don't do X. If you do, we'll do Y to you." Pretty simple. The same kind of thing is prescribed by libertarians too. The only real difference is that libertarians would like to do it without coercion. (Since most libertarians view the State as the biggest perpetrator of coercion, they understandably want to reduce or eliminate it.) None of this implies that regulations like "don't dump waste in the river" can't exist if the State were reduced or eliminated. > My criticisms would apply equally to those as well. I gave you an example in my initial comment that demonstrates how your criticism is far more broadly applicable than just libertarianism.

by MCRed 11y ago

vacri 11y ago

Capitalism is not a binary state. Chinese capitalism is not American capitalism is not Western European capitalism. Herein is one of the huge problems of libertarianism - there's no space for shades of gray. Everything is an absolute, a binary; either something is or something isn't, but the real world doesn't work that way. Some capitalism is good. Unfettered capitalism is not - the libertarian cry of "well if someone wrongs you, then sue them for damages in court" is all but useless. You may not even know which chemical company was poisoning the air you have been breathing for 10 years that caused your illness, but libertarians wouldn't restrict the company's actions ahead of time; apparently a monetary settlement (that of course an individual will be able to force a large company into settling in courts...) is always an appropriate solution. Hell, one libertarian I was talking to was suggesting privatising courts, and saying that the courts would be paid on performance. Somehow he thought that would mean the courts would be fair, rather than heavily biased to the private entity providing the paycheck. So, we'd end up with a system where the only restriction on capitalism would be actions performed well after the fact. We've seen what happens when profit motives are unfettered, and it's not pretty.

burntsushi 11y ago
> So, we'd end up with a system where the only restriction on capitalism would be actions performed well after the fact. Why is that a problem specific to capitalism? What system of justice prevents everything up front? As long as justice is somewhat predictable, others can plan based on what will happen to them. For example, we are currently in a system where the only restriction on murder is an action performed well after the fact (e.g., prison). > Herein is one of the huge problems of libertarianism - there's no space for shades of gray. That's not how I see it. Markets are one big shade of gray. There's nothing absolute about them at all.
- vacri 11y ago
  > Why is that a problem specific to capitalism? Libertarians argue against regulations, which are restrictions in place ahead of time. I find it disturbing that you are oblivious to that, even though you're responding to a comment which mentions air quality as an issue. As it stands, government regulations limit air pollution. Libertarians would remove those regulations and move the onus onto individuals to prove their cases in court. > What system of justice prevents everything up front? Where did I say 'everything'? This is exactly what I mean by libertarianism has no shades of gray. > Markets are one big shade of gray. 'Unpredictability' is not the gray we're talking about here.
  - burntsushi 11y ago
    > Libertarians argue against regulations, which are restrictions in place ahead of time. Regulations typically impose penalties for breaking them. People don't want to pay the penalty, so they don't break them. > Where did I say 'everything'? This is exactly what I mean by libertarianism has no shades of gray. My point is that you're lodging a criticism against libertarianism that isn't actually specific to libertarianism.
    - vacri 11y ago
      > Regulations... That is some seriously twisted logic to turn 'regulations' into 'restrictions implemented after the event'. > My point is that you're lodging a criticism against libertarianism... What other system wants to strip away all regulations? My criticisms would apply equally to those as well.
      - burntsushi 11y ago
        > That is some seriously twisted logic to turn 'regulations' into 'restrictions implemented after the event'. I don't really understand where your confusion is coming from. Regulations usually take the form of, "X is now illegal. If you do X, you will be punished with Y." It's pretty uninteresting if you ask me. People then avoid doing X because they don't want to be punished by Y. Say a new regulation is passed that says dumping waste in the local river is illegal. Governments don't then station officials watching every corner of the river preventing waste from being dumped. People can still dump if they want. But if they're caught, they now face a potentially severe penalty. There is very little difference from how regulations fundamentally operate than how other laws function. "Don't do X. If you do, we'll do Y to you." Pretty simple. The same kind of thing is prescribed by libertarians too. The only real difference is that libertarians would like to do it without coercion. (Since most libertarians view the State as the biggest perpetrator of coercion, they understandably want to reduce or eliminate it.) None of this implies that regulations like "don't dump waste in the river" can't exist if the State were reduced or eliminated. > My criticisms would apply equally to those as well. I gave you an example in my initial comment that demonstrates how your criticism is far more broadly applicable than just libertarianism.