4 ms·

And that’s why us libertarians hate the Republican party as much as the Democrats.

feet 4y ago
Libertarians also don't seem to recognise the inherently exploitative characteristics of capitalism and refuse to accept that regulation is necessary for the protection of workers and the populace from assholes with too much time, money, and power
- TexanFeller 4y ago
  Some of us are very aware of such exploitation, but we’re skeptical that we’ll be less exploited by those given political power to deal with those immoral capitalists. History is full of examples of party leaders in Marxist countries wining and dining while the populace lives in poverty. It happens when too much power rests in any institution. So I personally oppose large businesses as much as I oppose large government, and pretty much all large institutions in general(though a few types of them are almost unavoidable).
  - int_19h 4y ago
    But what kind of policy does that opposition to large businesses translate to? How do you prevent them from actually arising? Left answer to that is that large businesses are the result of unbounded concentration of capital. Left authoritarians (the ones I think you refer to as Marxists? even though not all of them are, and not all Marxists are authoritarian) want to limit it by state action. Left libertarians think that taking the government out of the picture and reworking property rights around some notion of usufruct is sufficient. But what's the right libertarian answer?
    - feet 4y ago
      That's what I'm wondering. Maybe we agree about the apparent root cause of the issue but we need a tangible solution to it, which could be restructuring ownership of businesses to better suit the people that make up those businesses. Regulation is a way to do that, or other things. But whatever we do will take some sort of regulation, or those same people who have too much money and power are going to keep doing the same old shit
      - int_19h 4y ago
        > but whatever we do will take some sort of regulation Not necessarily. For example, government reducing the scope of property right protection is less regulation, not more.
        feet 4y ago
        Okay how do they do that without regulation How does a government do anything without regulation? Is regulation not what government literally does?
        int_19h 4y ago
        Government protecting property is regulation: it's literally saying "if you touch X, which we consider to be owned by Y, we'll hurt you". It's that regulation that allows people and corporations to accumulate property (and, in particular, capital) indefinitely, knowing that however much they have, the government will intervene on their behalf. Now imagine the government saying something like "we don't consider X owned by Y; Y already has too much". This isn't regulation per se - nothing is regulated, and there's less enforcement, not more. The government isn't going around taking things away; it's just refusing to recognize X's claim and enforce it.
        feet 4y ago
        If people don't have the protection then it doesn't matter what the government does or doesn't do because those who do have power will do the same thing they always have. Shot on those who don't, that is my point

feet 4y ago

Libertarians also don't seem to recognise the inherently exploitative characteristics of capitalism and refuse to accept that regulation is necessary for the protection of workers and the populace from assholes with too much time, money, and power

TexanFeller 4y ago
Some of us are very aware of such exploitation, but we’re skeptical that we’ll be less exploited by those given political power to deal with those immoral capitalists. History is full of examples of party leaders in Marxist countries wining and dining while the populace lives in poverty. It happens when too much power rests in any institution. So I personally oppose large businesses as much as I oppose large government, and pretty much all large institutions in general(though a few types of them are almost unavoidable).
- int_19h 4y ago
  But what kind of policy does that opposition to large businesses translate to? How do you prevent them from actually arising? Left answer to that is that large businesses are the result of unbounded concentration of capital. Left authoritarians (the ones I think you refer to as Marxists? even though not all of them are, and not all Marxists are authoritarian) want to limit it by state action. Left libertarians think that taking the government out of the picture and reworking property rights around some notion of usufruct is sufficient. But what's the right libertarian answer?
  - feet 4y ago
    That's what I'm wondering. Maybe we agree about the apparent root cause of the issue but we need a tangible solution to it, which could be restructuring ownership of businesses to better suit the people that make up those businesses. Regulation is a way to do that, or other things. But whatever we do will take some sort of regulation, or those same people who have too much money and power are going to keep doing the same old shit
    - int_19h 4y ago
      > but whatever we do will take some sort of regulation Not necessarily. For example, government reducing the scope of property right protection is less regulation, not more.
      - feet 4y ago
        Okay how do they do that without regulation How does a government do anything without regulation? Is regulation not what government literally does?
        int_19h 4y ago
        Government protecting property is regulation: it's literally saying "if you touch X, which we consider to be owned by Y, we'll hurt you". It's that regulation that allows people and corporations to accumulate property (and, in particular, capital) indefinitely, knowing that however much they have, the government will intervene on their behalf. Now imagine the government saying something like "we don't consider X owned by Y; Y already has too much". This isn't regulation per se - nothing is regulated, and there's less enforcement, not more. The government isn't going around taking things away; it's just refusing to recognize X's claim and enforce it.
        feet 4y ago
        If people don't have the protection then it doesn't matter what the government does or doesn't do because those who do have power will do the same thing they always have. Shot on those who don't, that is my point