8 ms·

As a liberal I find libertarians downright revolting. When will these society supported and overwhelming rich (or "going to be rich") technical males realise th

As a liberal I find libertarians downright revolting. When will these society supported and overwhelming rich (or "going to be rich") technical males realise that the government created the industries they worked in through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so. When will they realize that their entire philosophy centers around a sociopathic psychological bias (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) and should essentially be known as a little more than a psychological disorder? When will they understand that free markets are not natural phenomena but the artificial creation of governments for the benefit of society and subject to the corrupting influences of market participants which turn most free markets into cartels without the pressure of regulation holding it back?

mathgladiator 14y ago
I find taxis revolting. The ones I've been are in unprofessional, unclean, and noisy. Uber costs more, and people are using it. This meas that the service provided by the current taxi system is inadequate. How would you propose that the quality that Uber provides come into existence without some kind of disruption/free-market/'rule-breakers'?
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  The reason people are choosing Uber is because the taxis suck. It's really that simple. Uber costs more and people will pay it. They pay it because you know what you are getting and you know that if you dont get it then the company will make it right. Uber is the most transparent company I've been able to find when it comes to auto transport. They give you a receipt with the route and the fare. Every component of the tally is right there for you. They even round down the total. What Taxis are pissed about is that there is a viable competitor for the BEST fares. Taxis dont want to upgrade their product but they want to keep the top of the market. I say good riddance. If every taxi in DC went out of business I wouldn't shed a single tear. edit:typo.
  - snogglethorpe 14y ago
    > The reason people are choosing Uber is because the taxis suck. It's really that simple. It isn't really that simple, of course. Taxis may indeed generally suck in some places. They certainly don't suck in others. Some places with non-sucky-in-general taxis: Japan, the U.K. (in Japan, the main issue with taxis is that they can be expensive ... but of course, that's one area where Uber apparently sucks as well...). Indeed, pretty much every place I've ever ridden in a taxi, the service has been absolutely fine. Granted NYC taxi-drivers can be a bit annoying (e.g. spending the entire ride talking at loud volume on their cellphone, getting pissy if you they think you didn't tip enough), but I've never had an actual issue.
- confluence 14y ago
  Industry level unions are essentially no better than the lobbyists used by multinational corporations - both attempt to enforce cartel pricing in the markets of their paying constituents via political action. Regulation must allow entry of new entrants if safe to do so for both consumers and drivers - competition is good if regulated correctly.
jlgreco 14y ago
To bring the discussion back to the actual topic, how do you apply those thoughts to the situation at hand? What are your thoughts on this particular case? I'm not really interested in what you think about libertarians in general. (Frankly I think the libertarian angle here is misplaced, though I still find attempts to slow Uber's growth to be very unfortunate)
- confluence 14y ago
  Unions are market participants in this case attempting to enforce cartel structures on an entire industry for their paying constituency - no better than the RIAA. Regulations should break this but not at the cost of consumer protection - cost cutting, not safe etc.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    My issue is not with the unions, but with the governments that afford them special favors. If it weren't the unions in this case (Is it even?) it would be the taxi corporations themselves. I think it is therefore important to focus the criticism not on unions but on the politicians themselves who try to get in Ubers way.
kiba 14y ago
Whoa, you should at least steelman libertarian beliefs before you assault a strawman position. Anyway, government is also responsible for creating cartels and monopolies, some of which lot of people justify. For example, patents should be granted to people for the purpose of encouraging innovation. However, it's more like granting a legal weapon to beat competitors into submission. The AT&T for example, wages war against the telephone independents using their patents. How do you prevent governments from simply becoming the lackeys of rent-seeking corporations? I had no fricking clues. Those libertarians seem to think elimination is the answer.
- robomartin 14y ago
  I don't think elimination is reasonable. I do think that massive reduction in, numbers, reach and powers is. As and example: I don't want to be at war with ANYONE. I don't want my government to have the power to unilaterally start them or get involved in them. If there's conflict it should be US, the people, who vote on these things. Why? Because these kinds of things can and will affect us, our children and their children. I don't want a vote-grabbing whore to be able to make those decisions. War is just one example of what I see as government over-reach. It happens to be one of the best examples that everyone can easily understand. Look at the history of the World Wars. Government started them. Governments. Not people. Tens of millions of people died. Imagine the entire population of California, Florida, Illinois, New York state, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas killed off. Everyone dies. That's probably less people than those who died during the World Wars. Isn't that sickening? You an imagine that, right? Well, governments started these wars. Not the people who died. Not their kids. We've become overly permissive with those who govern us. They get away with, almost literally, murder. Not sure what will stop it or change the course.
  - 3143 14y ago
    The wars we are currently in have not affected me one bit, except perhaps by adjusting prices for various goods by slim amounts that I can afford to ignore. Most people are like me. Saying that wars will affect all of us and our children as well is a huge exaggeration (unless you actually believe the government will attempt to pay down the national debt, which is just preposterous). It doesn't affect most people in any noticeable way, which is verified by how most people don't care.
robomartin 14y ago
That's sad brother. I don't find you revolting. Perhaps we disagree. But, revolting? That's a reach. I happen to think that your view that "When will <snip> technical males realise that the government created the industries they worked in through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so." is flawed in a million different ways. Virtually nothing government does is done well, efficiently and with true far-reaching vision towards future goals that will benefit all. In most cases it the results are nowhere near what government expected. The "invention" of the Internet is one such examples. While the genesis is solidly found in ARPANET not one person in government PLANNED for what we have today. Natural market evolutionary forces made this happen. Lots of entrepreneurs and investors throwing money, blood, sweat and tears into the pot and here we are. If it were up to government we'd still be trying to figure out how to raise taxes to pay for some ridiculous solution that nobody would want. Fortunes were made and lost giving the Internet life. Government couldn't even approach the people and financial investment that went into actually making it. Look at examples like Webvan to see the risks people took back then. Eight hundred million dollars pissed away chasing an idea. Yes, it was a failure, but that's EXACTLY what the free market is about. Some win. Some loose. And we all benefit from those who try. How about jumping into bullshit wars? How is that working for you? You certainly can't pin that one on private enterprise, can you? Nah, what needs to realized here is that we are an incredibly capable species that thrives by being challenged. We develop solutions by cooperating towards common goals and, yes, when there are benefits to be had (financial, intellectual, emotional, altruistic, etc.). Government, at least in the US, has degenerated into a do-whatever-it-takes-to-get-votes organism. All parties. All ideologies. They all want votes to stay in power 'cause it's a sweet ride. That's all they care about. Not you, I or our kids. Nothing else matters. The sooner we realize that and start to figure out how to fix it the better off we will be. Interference with private enterprise is just one side-effect of how these governments are failing us. I don't really like political labels that much because they don't really represent the person. I tend to use "libertarian" because, well, the other have nearly never represented me. One side is overly religious and the other side can be reminiscent of populist South American dictators that rile-up the masses, give them shit and buy votes. None of it good. I prefer to believe in the individual, the power of self determination and the drive to succeed. I could be wrong, but I think this is far better than some organization telling a startup that they can't disrupt the cab industry because, well, THEY don't want it disrupted. It's like asking buggy-whip workers if their industry should go out of business in order to allow automobiles to happen. Of course they'll say "no", and the politicians and unions that might represent them would have raise hell to protect them. In the end, protecting that industry would have been a huge mistake.
Roybatty 14y ago
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, you and others. You're sick in the head and immoral. Anybody that believes in freedom hates you.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  See, I think comments like that are why libertarians are marginalized. There is such a thing as thinking someone is both incorrect and coming from a good place with the best of intentions. I feel that insight has been buried somehow in recent years.
  - smokeyj 14y ago
    First sentence from parent's response: "As a liberal I find libertarians downright revolting.".
  - robomartin 14y ago
    That's true. It also has to do with context. Like it or not we are indoctrinated. Religion and politics are two or the most prominent examples of this. It takes a certain kind of person to move outside your own mind, if you will, and take a fresh and unbiased look at some of these subjects. I don't mean this to suggest that this makes one superior in any way. I am simply speaking about a fact. You can't evaluate religion without moving outside of it for your evaluation. As an atheist I had to move outside the indoctrination of nearly to decades of growing up in the christian faith in order to see it differently. And so, as we evaluate and discuss politics you'll come across people who --no matter what-- are attached to an ideology and there's nothing you can do to change that. They have to choose to open their minds to a conversation and an honest evaluation of where they stand. In many ways Romney was absolutely right in stating that 47% of voters will vote for Obama no matter what. What he neglected to say is that, for other reasons, 47% will vote for him no matter what. Those of us in the middle can be tough bunch because we don't buy into the indoctrination and dare to want to look at the facts every so often. I am certainly not right about everything and I know that some of my opinions might be critically flawed in many ways. I've always appreciated learning from others --and I have, a lot.
smutticus 14y ago
As someone who likes to develop nuanced views of issues outside of simpel labels like 'libertarian' or 'liberal' I find both of you revolting. Seriously, just say what you think. There is no need to identify your party affiliation before making a comment. It just decreases the likelyhood that I will positively associate with that label.
jswinghammer 14y ago
So people like Bastiat, Menger, Mises, and Rothbard all have the same sociopathic bias that made them write encouraging peace, trade, and cooperation for mutual benefit?
1123581321 14y ago
Please speak carefully. You called an entire set of people revolting, but the person who you called revolting only said a specific practice was revolting. There is a big difference between disliking something a person does and disliking a person intrinsically, or worse, a large group of people. I hope you didn't mean it but of you did it is a bigoted thing to say.
- confluence 14y ago
  No - I stand by what I said. Whenever I hear a libertarian speak a strong visceral reaction occurs, which I believe would be a akin to the one that I would've probably found with the Nazi party, the Communists or a racist Southerner (i.e. listening to an insane ideologue talk). It's no different to the reaction he probably feels with those who don't share his "grand world view no one understands but it's coming you sheeple" shtick. It is not bigotry to point out obvious flaws in ridiculous and damaging ideologies - it's merely interesting to note the amount of controversy I appear to have drummed up. What I find even more interesting is how many libertarians are often atheists, understand science/engineering and try to follow rational paths (this part is their downfall). Problem is most of their "rational" foundations are just way off - i.e. the world is fair, people will act like you want them too, free markets bring all the good to the world, markets are efficient, private industry doesn't corrupt etc. This is called cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance). The world is messier than people think it is - and sociopathic platonic ideals should be vehemently defended against.
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    I hope you understand my saying you seem similar to how people in those groups you mentioned think about groups of people they dislike. You must see the difference between strongly disliking what someone thinks and disliking the person intrinsically because of what they think. You should not justify it by claiming he treats people like you equally poorly, especially since in this thread he specifically called you "brother" and said he does not find you revolting even though you find him revolting. When you admit to having an instinctive negative reaction to a class of people and then justify it with logical statements, you seem to be a stronger example of cognitive dissonance than the example you gave.
joelrunyon 14y ago
I thought HN people knew better than to verbally attack large groups of individuals on a whim. While your world views may differ, referring to "those people" as revolting doesn't help further any type of discussion.
- pjscott 14y ago
  I thought HN people knew better than to apply broad stereotypes, however flattering, to groups as large as "HN people". (Your broader point is right, of course, but I'm not one to pass over an opportunity for recursive meta-kvetching.)
kika 14y ago
> through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so. What free marked failed to do? Create a taxi service? Gimme a break. Literally, if govt created a Manhattan project or Apollo doesn't automatically mean that they have to regulate everything else, including taxis and color of water in my toilet. Man, I know what I'm talking about - I've lived for 40 years in the country which was built exactly as you want it to: government regulates _absolutely_ everything. This country used to be one of the superpowers of the world, and then it disappeared. It didn't lose in the war, nobody occupied it, it just broke down under its own weight. One day it just ceased to exist.

mathgladiator 14y ago

I find taxis revolting. The ones I've been are in unprofessional, unclean, and noisy. Uber costs more, and people are using it. This meas that the service provided by the current taxi system is inadequate. How would you propose that the quality that Uber provides come into existence without some kind of disruption/free-market/'rule-breakers'?

Nrsolis 14y ago
The reason people are choosing Uber is because the taxis suck. It's really that simple. Uber costs more and people will pay it. They pay it because you know what you are getting and you know that if you dont get it then the company will make it right. Uber is the most transparent company I've been able to find when it comes to auto transport. They give you a receipt with the route and the fare. Every component of the tally is right there for you. They even round down the total. What Taxis are pissed about is that there is a viable competitor for the BEST fares. Taxis dont want to upgrade their product but they want to keep the top of the market. I say good riddance. If every taxi in DC went out of business I wouldn't shed a single tear. edit:typo.
- snogglethorpe 14y ago
  > The reason people are choosing Uber is because the taxis suck. It's really that simple. It isn't really that simple, of course. Taxis may indeed generally suck in some places. They certainly don't suck in others. Some places with non-sucky-in-general taxis: Japan, the U.K. (in Japan, the main issue with taxis is that they can be expensive ... but of course, that's one area where Uber apparently sucks as well...). Indeed, pretty much every place I've ever ridden in a taxi, the service has been absolutely fine. Granted NYC taxi-drivers can be a bit annoying (e.g. spending the entire ride talking at loud volume on their cellphone, getting pissy if you they think you didn't tip enough), but I've never had an actual issue.
confluence 14y ago
Industry level unions are essentially no better than the lobbyists used by multinational corporations - both attempt to enforce cartel pricing in the markets of their paying constituents via political action. Regulation must allow entry of new entrants if safe to do so for both consumers and drivers - competition is good if regulated correctly.

jlgreco 14y ago

To bring the discussion back to the actual topic, how do you apply those thoughts to the situation at hand? What are your thoughts on this particular case? I'm not really interested in what you think about libertarians in general. (Frankly I think the libertarian angle here is misplaced, though I still find attempts to slow Uber's growth to be very unfortunate)

confluence 14y ago
Unions are market participants in this case attempting to enforce cartel structures on an entire industry for their paying constituency - no better than the RIAA. Regulations should break this but not at the cost of consumer protection - cost cutting, not safe etc.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  My issue is not with the unions, but with the governments that afford them special favors. If it weren't the unions in this case (Is it even?) it would be the taxi corporations themselves. I think it is therefore important to focus the criticism not on unions but on the politicians themselves who try to get in Ubers way.

kiba 14y ago

Whoa, you should at least steelman libertarian beliefs before you assault a strawman position. Anyway, government is also responsible for creating cartels and monopolies, some of which lot of people justify. For example, patents should be granted to people for the purpose of encouraging innovation. However, it's more like granting a legal weapon to beat competitors into submission. The AT&T for example, wages war against the telephone independents using their patents. How do you prevent governments from simply becoming the lackeys of rent-seeking corporations? I had no fricking clues. Those libertarians seem to think elimination is the answer.

robomartin 14y ago
I don't think elimination is reasonable. I do think that massive reduction in, numbers, reach and powers is. As and example: I don't want to be at war with ANYONE. I don't want my government to have the power to unilaterally start them or get involved in them. If there's conflict it should be US, the people, who vote on these things. Why? Because these kinds of things can and will affect us, our children and their children. I don't want a vote-grabbing whore to be able to make those decisions. War is just one example of what I see as government over-reach. It happens to be one of the best examples that everyone can easily understand. Look at the history of the World Wars. Government started them. Governments. Not people. Tens of millions of people died. Imagine the entire population of California, Florida, Illinois, New York state, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas killed off. Everyone dies. That's probably less people than those who died during the World Wars. Isn't that sickening? You an imagine that, right? Well, governments started these wars. Not the people who died. Not their kids. We've become overly permissive with those who govern us. They get away with, almost literally, murder. Not sure what will stop it or change the course.
- 3143 14y ago
  The wars we are currently in have not affected me one bit, except perhaps by adjusting prices for various goods by slim amounts that I can afford to ignore. Most people are like me. Saying that wars will affect all of us and our children as well is a huge exaggeration (unless you actually believe the government will attempt to pay down the national debt, which is just preposterous). It doesn't affect most people in any noticeable way, which is verified by how most people don't care.

robomartin 14y ago

That's sad brother. I don't find you revolting. Perhaps we disagree. But, revolting? That's a reach. I happen to think that your view that "When will <snip> technical males realise that the government created the industries they worked in through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so." is flawed in a million different ways. Virtually nothing government does is done well, efficiently and with true far-reaching vision towards future goals that will benefit all. In most cases it the results are nowhere near what government expected. The "invention" of the Internet is one such examples. While the genesis is solidly found in ARPANET not one person in government PLANNED for what we have today. Natural market evolutionary forces made this happen. Lots of entrepreneurs and investors throwing money, blood, sweat and tears into the pot and here we are. If it were up to government we'd still be trying to figure out how to raise taxes to pay for some ridiculous solution that nobody would want. Fortunes were made and lost giving the Internet life. Government couldn't even approach the people and financial investment that went into actually making it. Look at examples like Webvan to see the risks people took back then. Eight hundred million dollars pissed away chasing an idea. Yes, it was a failure, but that's EXACTLY what the free market is about. Some win. Some loose. And we all benefit from those who try. How about jumping into bullshit wars? How is that working for you? You certainly can't pin that one on private enterprise, can you? Nah, what needs to realized here is that we are an incredibly capable species that thrives by being challenged. We develop solutions by cooperating towards common goals and, yes, when there are benefits to be had (financial, intellectual, emotional, altruistic, etc.). Government, at least in the US, has degenerated into a do-whatever-it-takes-to-get-votes organism. All parties. All ideologies. They all want votes to stay in power 'cause it's a sweet ride. That's all they care about. Not you, I or our kids. Nothing else matters. The sooner we realize that and start to figure out how to fix it the better off we will be. Interference with private enterprise is just one side-effect of how these governments are failing us. I don't really like political labels that much because they don't really represent the person. I tend to use "libertarian" because, well, the other have nearly never represented me. One side is overly religious and the other side can be reminiscent of populist South American dictators that rile-up the masses, give them shit and buy votes. None of it good. I prefer to believe in the individual, the power of self determination and the drive to succeed. I could be wrong, but I think this is far better than some organization telling a startup that they can't disrupt the cab industry because, well, THEY don't want it disrupted. It's like asking buggy-whip workers if their industry should go out of business in order to allow automobiles to happen. Of course they'll say "no", and the politicians and unions that might represent them would have raise hell to protect them. In the end, protecting that industry would have been a huge mistake.

Roybatty 14y ago

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, you and others. You're sick in the head and immoral. Anybody that believes in freedom hates you.

jlgreco 14y ago
See, I think comments like that are why libertarians are marginalized. There is such a thing as thinking someone is both incorrect and coming from a good place with the best of intentions. I feel that insight has been buried somehow in recent years.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  First sentence from parent's response: "As a liberal I find libertarians downright revolting.".
- robomartin 14y ago
  That's true. It also has to do with context. Like it or not we are indoctrinated. Religion and politics are two or the most prominent examples of this. It takes a certain kind of person to move outside your own mind, if you will, and take a fresh and unbiased look at some of these subjects. I don't mean this to suggest that this makes one superior in any way. I am simply speaking about a fact. You can't evaluate religion without moving outside of it for your evaluation. As an atheist I had to move outside the indoctrination of nearly to decades of growing up in the christian faith in order to see it differently. And so, as we evaluate and discuss politics you'll come across people who --no matter what-- are attached to an ideology and there's nothing you can do to change that. They have to choose to open their minds to a conversation and an honest evaluation of where they stand. In many ways Romney was absolutely right in stating that 47% of voters will vote for Obama no matter what. What he neglected to say is that, for other reasons, 47% will vote for him no matter what. Those of us in the middle can be tough bunch because we don't buy into the indoctrination and dare to want to look at the facts every so often. I am certainly not right about everything and I know that some of my opinions might be critically flawed in many ways. I've always appreciated learning from others --and I have, a lot.

smutticus 14y ago

As someone who likes to develop nuanced views of issues outside of simpel labels like 'libertarian' or 'liberal' I find both of you revolting. Seriously, just say what you think. There is no need to identify your party affiliation before making a comment. It just decreases the likelyhood that I will positively associate with that label.

jswinghammer 14y ago

So people like Bastiat, Menger, Mises, and Rothbard all have the same sociopathic bias that made them write encouraging peace, trade, and cooperation for mutual benefit?

1123581321 14y ago

Please speak carefully. You called an entire set of people revolting, but the person who you called revolting only said a specific practice was revolting. There is a big difference between disliking something a person does and disliking a person intrinsically, or worse, a large group of people. I hope you didn't mean it but of you did it is a bigoted thing to say.

confluence 14y ago
No - I stand by what I said. Whenever I hear a libertarian speak a strong visceral reaction occurs, which I believe would be a akin to the one that I would've probably found with the Nazi party, the Communists or a racist Southerner (i.e. listening to an insane ideologue talk). It's no different to the reaction he probably feels with those who don't share his "grand world view no one understands but it's coming you sheeple" shtick. It is not bigotry to point out obvious flaws in ridiculous and damaging ideologies - it's merely interesting to note the amount of controversy I appear to have drummed up. What I find even more interesting is how many libertarians are often atheists, understand science/engineering and try to follow rational paths (this part is their downfall). Problem is most of their "rational" foundations are just way off - i.e. the world is fair, people will act like you want them too, free markets bring all the good to the world, markets are efficient, private industry doesn't corrupt etc. This is called cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance). The world is messier than people think it is - and sociopathic platonic ideals should be vehemently defended against.
- 1123581321 14y ago
  I hope you understand my saying you seem similar to how people in those groups you mentioned think about groups of people they dislike. You must see the difference between strongly disliking what someone thinks and disliking the person intrinsically because of what they think. You should not justify it by claiming he treats people like you equally poorly, especially since in this thread he specifically called you "brother" and said he does not find you revolting even though you find him revolting. When you admit to having an instinctive negative reaction to a class of people and then justify it with logical statements, you seem to be a stronger example of cognitive dissonance than the example you gave.

joelrunyon 14y ago

I thought HN people knew better than to verbally attack large groups of individuals on a whim. While your world views may differ, referring to "those people" as revolting doesn't help further any type of discussion.

pjscott 14y ago
I thought HN people knew better than to apply broad stereotypes, however flattering, to groups as large as "HN people". (Your broader point is right, of course, but I'm not one to pass over an opportunity for recursive meta-kvetching.)

kika 14y ago

> through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so. What free marked failed to do? Create a taxi service? Gimme a break. Literally, if govt created a Manhattan project or Apollo doesn't automatically mean that they have to regulate everything else, including taxis and color of water in my toilet. Man, I know what I'm talking about - I've lived for 40 years in the country which was built exactly as you want it to: government regulates _absolutely_ everything. This country used to be one of the superpowers of the world, and then it disappeared. It didn't lose in the war, nobody occupied it, it just broke down under its own weight. One day it just ceased to exist.