4 ms·

> I'll never understand the hardcore libertarians - it's indistinguishable from sociopathy to me. Yet every example we know of where trade has had the fewest o

> I'll never understand the hardcore libertarians - it's indistinguishable from sociopathy to me. Yet every example we know of where trade has had the fewest obstacles (Britain during Victorian reign, Hong Kong under UK rule, Japan during the Meiji, Singapore post independence, Taiwan since split with China), we see a rapid improvement of the quality of life in just a couple of generations. Every socialist system we know of (USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Venzeula, etc) has turned to shit in just a couple of generations. I wonder which one is more sociopathic and not just seems to be the case. > They view the hardcore exploitation as a sin. The "entrap them in debt". The "buy the lawmakers and write the rules". The price fixing, data hoarding & selling, the "let's just do illegal stuff and pay a ridiculously small fine"-shit. It's really not about "nobody is allowed to make a profit". The bigger the government, the more corruption in it. These are arguments for small government, because the smaller it is, the less corrupt it can be. Entrapping into debt is the consequence of a high time preference economy where people are encouraged to spend rather than save. Money is not worth keeping because it is deliberately inflated. Austrian economists promote low time preference, because it's the accumulation of capital which enables things to get done without taking from the pocket of taxpayers. Data hoarding can be avoided by simply boycotting the companies involved. If enough people cared about it, the companies would have to change their stance. I'm not sure government interference is really going to help here if people aren't willing to help themselves. I also see it as a consequence of people being like overgrown children and not bearing any personal responsibility. There are countless examples from as far back as the 1800s of wealthy people putting their money towards public good, and doing a far better job of it than modern governments do now. Part of today's problem is also down to culture. It is seen as hip to be rich and blow your money on cars, houses and prostitutes. Communities are no longer a thing because big government has taken over nearly every role where people would've previously come together to solve problems. Real altruism is still practised by some of the super wealthy, but there's a significant amount of virtue signalling because it's a lot easier than performing.

luckylion 8y ago
> Yet every example we know of where trade has had the fewest obstacles (Britain during Victorian reign, Hong Kong under UK rule, Japan during the Meiji, Singapore post independence, Taiwan since split with China), we see a rapid improvement of the quality of life in just a couple of generations. If there was a causal connection, you'd expect the US to have a much better quality of life than, say, Sweden. I leave it to you to judge that. And don't mistake me for somebody who's arguing for socialism. I'm just not a fan of "let them starve, as long as I got mine" libertarianism, and apparently a lot of people aren't either. I'd wager that most libertarians wouldn't be either, if they weren't among those that do well in the current system, but that's beside the point. > There are countless examples from as far back as the 1800s of wealthy people putting their money towards public good, and doing a far better job of it than modern governments do now. Totally. And it seems to me that there are fewer and fewer today doing it in a similar fashion. I'm not a fan of government, but I'm certain that without it, Uber would use whips to motivate its delivery staff, and those on the receiving end of that motivation would have no way to quit working for Uber.
- sparkie 8y ago
  > If there was a causal connection, you'd expect the US to have a much better quality of life than, say, Sweden. I leave it to you to judge that. I don't think you've been to Sweden to make that claim, and perhaps you've been listening to socialist propaganda suggesting that Sweden is socialist. It isn't! Sweden is capitalist, and was in fact, one of the pioneers of free market capitalism. I strongly suggest taking an hour out of your time and watch this documentary for an image of Sweden which is a bit more grounded in reality: http://www.freetochoose.tv/program.php?id=sweden http://www.freetochoose.tv/program.php?id=sweden There are certainly some benefits from living in Sweden, but there are many other benefits from living in the US which you would not have in Sweden. > I'm just not a fan of "let them starve, as long as I got mine" libertarianism, and apparently a lot of people aren't either. I'd wager that most libertarians wouldn't be either You would be correct, libertarians do not hold this view. They hold the view that people are better at spending their own money than the government is, and this includes charitable donations. Government is an inefficient machine of waste, where a big slice of taxpayer money gets pocketed by every individual who has the opportunity. Direct charity from wealthy people is direct, and comes from understanding of the real problems, because it is usually local and focused. What do some bureaucrats in Washington know of the troubles of people on the street of downtown SF? Why would people on downtown SF want to give away more of their liberties to those people
  - luckylion 8y ago
    > I don't think you've been to Sweden to make that claim, and perhaps you've been listening to socialist propaganda suggesting that Sweden is socialist. I have, multiple times actually, and live quite close. They are a high tax, strong central state country with a strong safety net, and more regulations than the US. The same goes for Denmark, btw. You'd expect them dropping far below the US as well with all the ways the government injects itself into the market. Yet, they don't. Granted, they might have fewer TV channels, a lower incarceration and not have a significant part on antidepressants and opiods, so it's open to debate who actually has a higher quality of life ;) > You would be correct, libertarians do not hold this view. I suppose that's similar to half of the feminists saying they are actually egalitarians. Virtually all libertarians I've encountered very much do hold that view. "But we might be charitable". Sure. Might. Everything might happen. > What do some bureaucrats in Washington know of the troubles of people on the street of downtown SF? What do the super rich in SF do when faced with mass homelessness and people living in open slums otherwise seen in the third world? "Look somewhere else" appears to be the answer. Granted, there are probably a few who don't, but by and large, they don't care.

luckylion 8y ago

> Yet every example we know of where trade has had the fewest obstacles (Britain during Victorian reign, Hong Kong under UK rule, Japan during the Meiji, Singapore post independence, Taiwan since split with China), we see a rapid improvement of the quality of life in just a couple of generations. If there was a causal connection, you'd expect the US to have a much better quality of life than, say, Sweden. I leave it to you to judge that. And don't mistake me for somebody who's arguing for socialism. I'm just not a fan of "let them starve, as long as I got mine" libertarianism, and apparently a lot of people aren't either. I'd wager that most libertarians wouldn't be either, if they weren't among those that do well in the current system, but that's beside the point. > There are countless examples from as far back as the 1800s of wealthy people putting their money towards public good, and doing a far better job of it than modern governments do now. Totally. And it seems to me that there are fewer and fewer today doing it in a similar fashion. I'm not a fan of government, but I'm certain that without it, Uber would use whips to motivate its delivery staff, and those on the receiving end of that motivation would have no way to quit working for Uber.

sparkie 8y ago
> If there was a causal connection, you'd expect the US to have a much better quality of life than, say, Sweden. I leave it to you to judge that. I don't think you've been to Sweden to make that claim, and perhaps you've been listening to socialist propaganda suggesting that Sweden is socialist. It isn't! Sweden is capitalist, and was in fact, one of the pioneers of free market capitalism. I strongly suggest taking an hour out of your time and watch this documentary for an image of Sweden which is a bit more grounded in reality: http://www.freetochoose.tv/program.php?id=sweden http://www.freetochoose.tv/program.php?id=sweden There are certainly some benefits from living in Sweden, but there are many other benefits from living in the US which you would not have in Sweden. > I'm just not a fan of "let them starve, as long as I got mine" libertarianism, and apparently a lot of people aren't either. I'd wager that most libertarians wouldn't be either You would be correct, libertarians do not hold this view. They hold the view that people are better at spending their own money than the government is, and this includes charitable donations. Government is an inefficient machine of waste, where a big slice of taxpayer money gets pocketed by every individual who has the opportunity. Direct charity from wealthy people is direct, and comes from understanding of the real problems, because it is usually local and focused. What do some bureaucrats in Washington know of the troubles of people on the street of downtown SF? Why would people on downtown SF want to give away more of their liberties to those people
- luckylion 8y ago
  > I don't think you've been to Sweden to make that claim, and perhaps you've been listening to socialist propaganda suggesting that Sweden is socialist. I have, multiple times actually, and live quite close. They are a high tax, strong central state country with a strong safety net, and more regulations than the US. The same goes for Denmark, btw. You'd expect them dropping far below the US as well with all the ways the government injects itself into the market. Yet, they don't. Granted, they might have fewer TV channels, a lower incarceration and not have a significant part on antidepressants and opiods, so it's open to debate who actually has a higher quality of life ;) > You would be correct, libertarians do not hold this view. I suppose that's similar to half of the feminists saying they are actually egalitarians. Virtually all libertarians I've encountered very much do hold that view. "But we might be charitable". Sure. Might. Everything might happen. > What do some bureaucrats in Washington know of the troubles of people on the street of downtown SF? What do the super rich in SF do when faced with mass homelessness and people living in open slums otherwise seen in the third world? "Look somewhere else" appears to be the answer. Granted, there are probably a few who don't, but by and large, they don't care.