3 ms·

It's certainly not widely accepted. Almost only libertarians have such a dogmatic understanding of the meaning of voluntary - simply because it defies common se

by jahaja 9y ago

It's certainly not widely accepted. Almost only libertarians have such a dogmatic understanding of the meaning of voluntary - simply because it defies common sense. Furthermore I have no idea where I defined it as including "putting a gun to somebody's head". However I do recognize, unlike libertarians, that there's both direct and indirect ways of putting a gun towards someones head. Only acknowledging the former is to, as you nicely put it; "redefining language in service of your ideology". You do realize that even if the common people would have property rights during the age of kings it wouldn't matter? Neither will it in a modern version of it. The concentration of capital/property, and thus kings, would be inevitable. I'm sure this is a feature and not a bug given the demographics of libertarians. Also you could've spared me the inevitable "Let's compare the idea I oppose by a measurement than I'm not willing to judge my own idea". I'm sure we could compile an equal body count of regimes calling themselves free market/market economy/capitalist or similar. But people using this body count rhetoric seldom accept such comparisons.

jules 9y ago
> It's certainly not widely accepted. Almost only libertarians have such a dogmatic understanding of the meaning of voluntary - simply because it defies common sense. What libertarians believe is not relevant. I am not a libertarian and do not speak for them. I do not share their dogmatic understanding of the word voluntary. I agree that the meaning is not perfectly well defined and that there is a discussion to be had, but there are limits to which you can stretch its meaning. What of my description of voluntary is not widely accepted? > You do realize that even if the common people would have property rights during the age of kings it wouldn't matter? Neither will it in a modern version of it. Except for the fact that it has. Almost all aristocratic families in my country have gone all but bankrupt. They have had to transform their castles into hotels and museums in order to barely break even on the cost of the upkeep. In fact, many of these castles are receiving government help as monuments. > I'm sure we could compile an equal body count of regimes calling themselves free market/market economy/capitalist or similar. No, you cannot. There are a few, like the Pinochet regime, but the death toll is orders of magnitude off. In fact, although authoritarian politically, Chile did transform from the poorest country in Latin America into the richest. And it transitioned to democracy with very little violence.
- jahaja 9y ago
  It's clearly an exercise in futility to engage further with such an ahistorical world view. It would go too far off-topic as well. Thanks though. However, I'll give you a starting point for compiling a list by the same yard stick; there was recently news coverage of an Indian politician accusing Churchill of genocide. It has been barely contested, and for good historical reason. And that's the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
  - jules 9y ago
    Firstly, Churchill's war-time policies can hardly be described as capitalism. Secondly, an accusation by a politician means little. Thirdly, even if we accept that it is true and that we can attribute this genocide to capitalism (none of which you have made even plausible), how many of those 100 million does that get you? Fourthly, it is rather curious that you choose a (supposed) genocide executed by government as your attack on capitalism. I would have hoped for an example of a society that embraced capitalism and where tens of millions of people starved as a result. That would be a strong argument. That is after all the primary argument for socialism: the poor will suffer under capitalism, and thrive under socialism. Yet reality continuously fails to comply with this theory. Venezuela is running another experiment right now to prove for the umpteenth time what we already know. Apparently the zoo animals have already been eaten by hungry citizens. You have also not pointed out what is ahistorical about my view, let alone provided evidence that it is in fact ahistorical.

by jahaja 9y ago

jules 9y ago

> It's certainly not widely accepted. Almost only libertarians have such a dogmatic understanding of the meaning of voluntary - simply because it defies common sense. What libertarians believe is not relevant. I am not a libertarian and do not speak for them. I do not share their dogmatic understanding of the word voluntary. I agree that the meaning is not perfectly well defined and that there is a discussion to be had, but there are limits to which you can stretch its meaning. What of my description of voluntary is not widely accepted? > You do realize that even if the common people would have property rights during the age of kings it wouldn't matter? Neither will it in a modern version of it. Except for the fact that it has. Almost all aristocratic families in my country have gone all but bankrupt. They have had to transform their castles into hotels and museums in order to barely break even on the cost of the upkeep. In fact, many of these castles are receiving government help as monuments. > I'm sure we could compile an equal body count of regimes calling themselves free market/market economy/capitalist or similar. No, you cannot. There are a few, like the Pinochet regime, but the death toll is orders of magnitude off. In fact, although authoritarian politically, Chile did transform from the poorest country in Latin America into the richest. And it transitioned to democracy with very little violence.

jahaja 9y ago
It's clearly an exercise in futility to engage further with such an ahistorical world view. It would go too far off-topic as well. Thanks though. However, I'll give you a starting point for compiling a list by the same yard stick; there was recently news coverage of an Indian politician accusing Churchill of genocide. It has been barely contested, and for good historical reason. And that's the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
- jules 9y ago
  Firstly, Churchill's war-time policies can hardly be described as capitalism. Secondly, an accusation by a politician means little. Thirdly, even if we accept that it is true and that we can attribute this genocide to capitalism (none of which you have made even plausible), how many of those 100 million does that get you? Fourthly, it is rather curious that you choose a (supposed) genocide executed by government as your attack on capitalism. I would have hoped for an example of a society that embraced capitalism and where tens of millions of people starved as a result. That would be a strong argument. That is after all the primary argument for socialism: the poor will suffer under capitalism, and thrive under socialism. Yet reality continuously fails to comply with this theory. Venezuela is running another experiment right now to prove for the umpteenth time what we already know. Apparently the zoo animals have already been eaten by hungry citizens. You have also not pointed out what is ahistorical about my view, let alone provided evidence that it is in fact ahistorical.