4 ms·

I doubt this will be a popular opinion on HN, but...this is what comes of libertarianism. What is a government other than a group of people who agree to work t

I doubt this will be a popular opinion on HN, but...this is what comes of libertarianism. What is a government other than a group of people who agree to work together toward certain goals and hold each other accountable to certain moral and ethical standards? Yet somehow, "government" has become the enemy, a thing to be done away with or reduced in scope. When you do that, and replace government with "voted for with your dollars" corporations, suddenly corporations become the standard bearers of morals and ethics. Now, if I want to stand by my own moral code, I have to research every corporation I interact with. Can't buy those shoes, they employ slave labor. Can't hail this ride sharing service, they endorse autocratic regimes. Can't rent an office over there, they eat meat...or whatever. It's exhausting! I'd much rather go to the polls, cast a vote for someone who represents my values, and have the government DO ITS JOB! ...but alas, that seems like the least likely thing that will happen in this situation.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
merpnderp 8y ago
The leader of the Senate just said they’re dropping the hammer inn Saudia Arabia. I’m sure this will include sanctions which is likely what you’re hoping for.
- jballanc 8y ago
  It is what I'm hoping for, but I'm not holding my breath. Remember when the Senate instructed President Trump to sanction Russia? Yeah...
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    The Senate did sanction Russia...
spamizbad 8y ago
I'm no libertarian, but there's really nothing intrinsic about libertarianism that would cause it to support countries like Saudi Arabia. Political ideologies do not inoculate you against supporting oppressive regimes or even the oppression of your own people.
seibelj 8y ago
You can have a libertarian ethos without taking it to the logical extreme, just as you can consider yourself socialist without believing that the government should forcibly seize the means of production and outlaw private property. A libertarian attitude has its place and deserves a seat at the philosophical table.
- jballanc 8y ago
  Agreed, but I don't think that negates my point: taken to an extreme, libertarianism is extremely inefficient with respect to morals. Instead of making clear choices once (or once per election), I am now tasked with making an ethical choice with every purchasing decision. One may argue whether or not it is ever possible to avoid at least some component of ethics in purchase decision making as every company must make many decisions on how to source labor and materials. One may also argue whether or not it is ever possible to completely avoid paying for a social safety net (or lack thereof) as crime increases when poverty is rampant. I merely wanted to point out that (IMHO) the only reason we're even having to read articles like this is because of a glaring lack of moral authority at the head of the current administration.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    I don't think the alleged amorality of the current US administration is due to libertarian philosophical beliefs. See tariffs and anti-immigration sentiment to start.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cat199 8y ago
not a libertarian, but what do the alleged actions of of a theocratic monarchy have to do with the potential excesses of free market capitalism?
- 394549 8y ago
  > not a libertarian, but what do the alleged actions of of a theocratic monarchy have to do with the potential excesses of free market capitalism? Probably because there's profit to be had in making deals with that theocratic monarchy. It's the same thing with China. If you're optimizing for market success as you are in free market capitalism, you're incentivized to overlook things that stand in the way of that success, like the immorality of making deals with foreign authoritarians.
- jballanc 8y ago
  Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to link "libertarianism" and "despotic theocratic monarchy", but rather "libertarianism" and "ethics via purchasing power". Ideally, governments should be worried about ethics and businesses should be worried about making money. Instead, in the US today we have businesses worried about ethics and the government worried about making money.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

merpnderp 8y ago

The leader of the Senate just said they’re dropping the hammer inn Saudia Arabia. I’m sure this will include sanctions which is likely what you’re hoping for.

jballanc 8y ago
It is what I'm hoping for, but I'm not holding my breath. Remember when the Senate instructed President Trump to sanction Russia? Yeah...
- gamblor956 8y ago
  The Senate did sanction Russia...

spamizbad 8y ago

I'm no libertarian, but there's really nothing intrinsic about libertarianism that would cause it to support countries like Saudi Arabia. Political ideologies do not inoculate you against supporting oppressive regimes or even the oppression of your own people.

seibelj 8y ago

You can have a libertarian ethos without taking it to the logical extreme, just as you can consider yourself socialist without believing that the government should forcibly seize the means of production and outlaw private property. A libertarian attitude has its place and deserves a seat at the philosophical table.

jballanc 8y ago
Agreed, but I don't think that negates my point: taken to an extreme, libertarianism is extremely inefficient with respect to morals. Instead of making clear choices once (or once per election), I am now tasked with making an ethical choice with every purchasing decision. One may argue whether or not it is ever possible to avoid at least some component of ethics in purchase decision making as every company must make many decisions on how to source labor and materials. One may also argue whether or not it is ever possible to completely avoid paying for a social safety net (or lack thereof) as crime increases when poverty is rampant. I merely wanted to point out that (IMHO) the only reason we're even having to read articles like this is because of a glaring lack of moral authority at the head of the current administration.
- seibelj 8y ago
  I don't think the alleged amorality of the current US administration is due to libertarian philosophical beliefs. See tariffs and anti-immigration sentiment to start.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cat199 8y ago

not a libertarian, but what do the alleged actions of of a theocratic monarchy have to do with the potential excesses of free market capitalism?

394549 8y ago
> not a libertarian, but what do the alleged actions of of a theocratic monarchy have to do with the potential excesses of free market capitalism? Probably because there's profit to be had in making deals with that theocratic monarchy. It's the same thing with China. If you're optimizing for market success as you are in free market capitalism, you're incentivized to overlook things that stand in the way of that success, like the immorality of making deals with foreign authoritarians.
jballanc 8y ago
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to link "libertarianism" and "despotic theocratic monarchy", but rather "libertarianism" and "ethics via purchasing power". Ideally, governments should be worried about ethics and businesses should be worried about making money. Instead, in the US today we have businesses worried about ethics and the government worried about making money.