4 ms·

> 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 capi

> 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.
- bmelton 11y ago
  > Libertarians argue against regulations Every party has flaws. Every philosophy that derives from first principles has flaws. If there's a flaw in libertarianism, it's that it doesn't recognize externalities well. That it infuriates you is problematic. I bounce all over the spectrum on what I believe, and I frequent the DMV voter registration guy to change parties enough that he knows me by name. That said, no matter how much you love any particular philosophy, it can't always hold to be the rightest thing ever. The American left thinks that it's too burdensome to demand an ID to exercise the right to vote, which isn't even enumerated in the constitution, but think that in-depth background checks are perfectly acceptable to purchase a firearm. The American right feels exactly the opposite. A true civil libertarian believes that an ID infringes on both, and would reject registration hurdles for both. In scenarios like this I believe that libertarians hold the most enlightened view, which is why I sometimes refer to myself as a libertarian for convenience, depending on the conversation. > libertarianism has no shades of gray. On this I disagree vehemently. There are many, many shades of gray within libertarianism. Yes, there are absolutists in every camp, and yes, as with every other camp, they tend to be vocal, but there's no singular libertarian rulebook that everybody follows. There's even a Wiki article on their quibbles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism Generally speaking, the one universal truth within libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which states that force should not be used. As most penalties eventually result in force (not paying taxes results in jail), it tends to seem absolutist, but not all libertarians are propertarians, nor are they universally opposed to business obligations (like carbon offsets and the like).
  - vacri 11y ago
    > Generally speaking, the one universal truth within libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which states that force should not be used. Which is one of the most nonsensical things about libertarianism - that any time authority want you do to something, it's referred to as 'violence'. It's 'violence' because if you keep refusing to comply, then at the end of a long chain of events, eventually an authorised officer will start to manhandle you. Hence even the smallest thing becomes 'violence'. Yet... Libertarianism offers "the courts" as the solution to pretty much all disputes. What happens when someone doesn't comply with court rulings? The court finds that your activities have injured your neighbour and you must give remuneration. You flip off both the court and the neighbour. What happens now? Libertarianism has quite a few of these blind spots. Again, you don't have to be a Libertarian to be for civil liberties.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

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.
bmelton 11y ago
> Libertarians argue against regulations Every party has flaws. Every philosophy that derives from first principles has flaws. If there's a flaw in libertarianism, it's that it doesn't recognize externalities well. That it infuriates you is problematic. I bounce all over the spectrum on what I believe, and I frequent the DMV voter registration guy to change parties enough that he knows me by name. That said, no matter how much you love any particular philosophy, it can't always hold to be the rightest thing ever. The American left thinks that it's too burdensome to demand an ID to exercise the right to vote, which isn't even enumerated in the constitution, but think that in-depth background checks are perfectly acceptable to purchase a firearm. The American right feels exactly the opposite. A true civil libertarian believes that an ID infringes on both, and would reject registration hurdles for both. In scenarios like this I believe that libertarians hold the most enlightened view, which is why I sometimes refer to myself as a libertarian for convenience, depending on the conversation. > libertarianism has no shades of gray. On this I disagree vehemently. There are many, many shades of gray within libertarianism. Yes, there are absolutists in every camp, and yes, as with every other camp, they tend to be vocal, but there's no singular libertarian rulebook that everybody follows. There's even a Wiki article on their quibbles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism Generally speaking, the one universal truth within libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which states that force should not be used. As most penalties eventually result in force (not paying taxes results in jail), it tends to seem absolutist, but not all libertarians are propertarians, nor are they universally opposed to business obligations (like carbon offsets and the like).
- vacri 11y ago
  > Generally speaking, the one universal truth within libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which states that force should not be used. Which is one of the most nonsensical things about libertarianism - that any time authority want you do to something, it's referred to as 'violence'. It's 'violence' because if you keep refusing to comply, then at the end of a long chain of events, eventually an authorised officer will start to manhandle you. Hence even the smallest thing becomes 'violence'. Yet... Libertarianism offers "the courts" as the solution to pretty much all disputes. What happens when someone doesn't comply with court rulings? The court finds that your activities have injured your neighbour and you must give remuneration. You flip off both the court and the neighbour. What happens now? Libertarianism has quite a few of these blind spots. Again, you don't have to be a Libertarian to be for civil liberties.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]