Libertarianism as the Handmaiden to Socialism

[DocSolarisReich]

But it isn't the basis for the system. At all. The basis of the morality system is the NAP. That's about it. Also, Libertarianism also doesn't call for getting rid of culture either, or authority that people decide to follow. All it says is that people have the right not to submit to unjust authority. So you don't seem to know what your are talking about.

Look pal, I’ve been where you are. Lolbertarianism is old hat for me, so please, don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining. Claiming that libertarianism is ‘merely atomic individuals obeying the laws of non aggression’ for reasons begs so many questions it’s not even funny.

Why is libertarianism right? On what basis is authority to be determined, who decides if something is just?

The moment that the ‘market’ is invoked to answer those questions, the real basis of the system is revealed.

 

[Abhorsen]

Look pal, I’ve been where you are. Lolbertarianism is old hat for me, so please, don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining. Claiming that libertarianism is ‘merely atomic individuals obeying the laws of non aggression’ for reasons begs so many questions it’s not even funny.

Why is libertarianism right? On what basis is authority to be determined, who decides if something is just?

The moment that the ‘market’ is invoked to answer those questions, the real basis of the system is revealed.

But it isn't used for that? The free market emerges from the NAP, not the other way around. And libertarianism comes from the principle of nonaggression, and the existence of private property. If you don't accept those, then obviously, you won't accept the conclusion.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

But it isn't used for that? The free market emerges from the NAP, not the other way around. And libertarianism comes from the principle of nonaggression, and the existence of private property. If you don't accept those, then obviously, you won't accept the conclusion.

Alright, let’s go through it. How do you define this ‘Non Aggression Principle’ ?

 

[Abhorsen]

Alright, let’s go through it. How do you define this ‘Non Aggression Principle’ ?

In simple terms, don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff, unless in self defense (which requires aggression, or at least reasonably perceived aggression, not just need). This extends to things like threats as well.

Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JagerIV]

Fat people hurt me through their existance, therefore aggression against them is justified. I'm sure Hitler could point to a 100 ways the jews were harmful to Germany.

NAP really doesnt say anything particularly profound besides do good things and dont do bad things.

Or, it more or less pushes pacifism, which is a silly philosophy. One of losers more or less.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

In simple terms, don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff, unless in self defense (which requires aggression, or at least reasonably perceived aggression, not just need). This extends to things like threats as well.

Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But why?

 

[Abhorsen]

Fat people hurt me through their existance, therefore aggression against them is justified. I'm sure Hitler could point to a 100 ways the jews were harmful to Germany.

There is a little common sense required, obviously. I mean, if I want to abandon common sense entirely, I could come up with all kinds of loopholes to any moral system.

NAP really doesnt say anything particularly profound besides do good things and dont do bad things.

Or, it more or less pushes pacifism, which is a silly philosophy. One of losers more or less.

And now you have no idea what you are talking about.

First, the NAP very much doesn't say do good things. It doesn't care if you never do a good thing in your life. Just don't do bad things, which, while they aren't explicitly laid out, are pretty easy to determine with basic logic.

Second, your examples don't work. For example, how did the fat person you are using as an objection actually harm you? Just claiming that he is isn't good enough. As for the Jews being harmful to Germany, that wouldn't matter even if it was true. They'd have to be harmful (by the definition of the NAP, not whatever you want it to mean) to a specific person, not a state.

And then you say it pushes pacifism, which it very much doesn't. Pacifism holds that one must turn the other cheek. The NAP says I can shoot someone in the back if he's running away weaponless with my stolen property.

But why?

Because that is the moral basis from which I derive my morality: don't harm people, don't take their stuff. You could go one step deeper and make a good argument the NAP comes from property rights, but you'll just add a why there as well. Ultimately, all moral systems have an assumption at the base of them. This is mine.

But what matters here is that none of this is based off of homo economicus, as you claimed it needed to be.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

But what matters here is that none of this is based off of homo economicus, as you claimed it needed to be.

But it is, as non aggression is the morality of the marketplace, which is why it comes out of agorist and utilitarian theories of the good.

 

[Abhorsen]

But it is, as non aggression is the morality of the marketplace, which is why it comes out of agorist and utilitarian theories of the good.

What does that have to do with anything? First, so what that the marketplace gets its morality from the NAP, that doesn't mean the NAP relies on the marketplace. Second, I don't care if the agorist/utilitarian theories may have developed the NAP. That still doesn't help you show that the idea relies on some homo economicus. Just because someone with wrong ideas had a right idea doesn't make that idea wrong.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

What does that have to do with anything? First, so what that the marketplace gets its morality from the NAP, that doesn't mean the NAP relies on the marketplace. Second, I don't care if the agorist/utilitarian theories may have developed the NAP. That still doesn't help you show that the idea relies on some homo economicus. Just because someone with wrong ideas had a right idea doesn't make that idea wrong.

It’s completely nonsensical outside of the market as a rule for interaction between stranger who need to cooperate long enough to trade without killing and/or robbing each other. And markets are the result of communities, not the other way around.

 

[Abhorsen]

It’s completely nonsensical outside of the market as a rule for interaction between stranger who need to cooperate long enough to trade without killing and/or robbing each other. And markets are the result of communities, not the other way around.

No, the NAP is a quite sensible rule in general. Or are you going to argue that it's sensical to go around stealing stuff and hurting people without being provoked, because that's the alternative to not following it.

And again, how does the NAP rely on markets? It's clearly the other way around. The NAP enables markets, but it is in no way morally dependent on homo economicus (which also isn't a moral principle either).

 

[DocSolarisReich]

The NAP enables markets

Exactly! That’s the justification for the morality, to have a market. But what if we don’t care about having markets?

What if we decide that the strong take what the can and the weak suffer what they must?

What if our god commands aggression?

Why should we treat enemy tribes as merchants in a marketplace and not kill them when we can?

The only reason to adopt the NAP in the first place is that we assume Homo economicus is true. First we assume that happiness is dying of old age with the most stuff, then it follows that the NAP is the way to go about it.

 

[Abhorsen]

Exactly! That’s the justification for the morality, to have a market. But what if we don’t care about having markets?

No "exactly". You don't seem to get what I'm saying. Just because the NAP has nice features, like markets, doesn't make markets a justification for it. You have this backwards.

The NAP is good because hurting people is wrong. That's the entire justification for it. It's an axiom. Accept it or argue for violence/theft.

Now the NAP also has nice things that result from it, like markets, which is good advertisement but not the reason one actually buys the NAP.

 

[Doomsought]

People who attempt to use objectivism as a source of morality don't get the point of objectivism: to prove the Communists wrong about capitalism. What objectivism really does is show how enforcing capitalism incentivises evil people to behave in a manner resembling good people.

The States roles in a libertarian society, before the potheads moved in, was to enforce capitalism. That means maintaining a police force to prevent coercion within the local market and a military to prevent plunder by foreign agressors.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

No "exactly". You don't seem to get what I'm saying. Just because the NAP has nice features, like markets, doesn't make markets a justification for it. You have this backwards.

The NAP is good because hurting people is wrong. That's the entire justification for it. It's an axiom. Accept it or argue for violence/theft.

Now the NAP also has nice things that result from it, like markets, which is good advertisement but not the reason one actually buys the NAP.

Hernan Cortez is a hero. Therefore NAP is falsified.

 

[Abhorsen]

Hernan Cortez is a hero. Therefore NAP is falsified.

Why is he a hero?

Also, if you don't agree with it, that's fine. You can live in a world of theft and violence, or in communism. But your arguments about it relying on 'homo economicus' are crap.

 

[JagerIV]

Hm, I think part of the problem is, at base, we do live in a world of theft and violence. The initiation of violence is a part of life and existence. For example, how does a libertarian handle such a basic idea as "spare the rod, spoil the child?". How is the child supposed to be disciplined? If I betray someone, does that count as aggression? Should not traitors be killed? What about the disobeying of commands? Enforcing the NAP starts with wielding an immense amount of force against a great many people. You bend everyone to the collective will and the covenant of non-aggression (at least among those in covenant) and violently punish people who breach that covenant. The NAP only really exists on a bedrock of immense violence. Which makes the NAP not really particularly useful as a fundamental moral access, because I'm not sure it really says much more than to follow the existing moral framework and at least don't break the rules.

Thus the somewhat utopian thinking that sometimes seems to come out of it, and the similar disconnect between reality one can feel between Libertarianism and the real world. I would agree the Libertarians may be less disconnected than the communist is, but on the other hand the Communist idea seems to have more power in practice: the ideas of Communism have been able to wield the power to conquer half the world, if not more, while Libertarianism gets 1% of support in America, which is the most pro freedom pro individuality place on earth as far as I can tell.

Even to take the libertarian/liberal as synonyms of each other, the Liberal ideal lost some time around the 1900s. Every Liberal party was close to a de-facto socialist party by that point it seems.

Liberalism seems often so impotent a force in the world.

 

[Aldarion]

Also, capitalism needing perfectly rational humans to work is a lie based on a misunderstanding of what homo economicus really is. Humans do act mostly rationally, according to their own, possibly irrational, desires. A homo economicus model (and note the word model, it isn't supposed to be perfect), doesn't ask for rationality in what people want or desire, just in the manner in which they want something.

Fact that it assumes / supposes rationality at all is a major flaw in the theory.

 

[Abhorsen]

Fact that it assumes / supposes rationality at all is a major flaw in the theory.

No, it's really not. It assumes that people pursue stuff they desire, that's about it. Please give me an example where you claim it doesn't work, and it'll be either so unusual that it can be safely ignored by the model, or the person will be acting rationally about possible irrational desires.

Hm, I think part of the problem is, at base, we do live in a world of theft and violence. The initiation of violence is a part of life and existence. For example, how does a libertarian handle such a basic idea as "spare the rod, spoil the child?". How is the child supposed to be disciplined? If I betray someone, does that count as aggression? Should not traitors be killed? What about the disobeying of commands?

So a couple of points here. First, there's usually a big honking exception for children, as they don't know what they are doing. Second, betrayal is generally considered aggression under fraud (they promised X then refused to do X).

As for commands, those can be disobeyed unless the person commanded has consented to the authority ahead of time, at which point forcing the person to obey commands isn't aggression, as you agreed to it.

You bend everyone to the collective will and the covenant of non-aggression (at least among those in covenant) and violently punish people who breach that covenant.

What collective will? Following the NAP personally doesn't require a collective. Also, it doesn't require violence. It just allows violence in response to violations, not demands it.

Which makes the NAP not really particularly useful as a fundamental moral access, because I'm not sure it really says much more than to follow the existing moral framework and at least don't break the rules.

Again, that's wrong. The NAP provides the framework by (somewhat ambiguously, admittedly) defining aggression.

Thus the somewhat utopian thinking that sometimes seems to come out of it, and the similar disconnect between reality one can feel between Libertarianism and the real world. I would agree the Libertarians may be less disconnected than the communist is, but on the other hand the Communist idea seems to have more power in practice: the ideas of Communism have been able to wield the power to conquer half the world, if not more, while Libertarianism gets 1% of support in America, which is the most pro freedom pro individuality place on earth as far as I can tell.

But the ideas of libertarianism are very influential in the United States, despite not being incredibly popular in whole. Free Speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, free market capitalism, I could go on. Communism is successful at the point of a gun. Libertarianism is successful because people like the ideas it generates and implement them.

Even to take the libertarian/liberal as synonyms of each other, the Liberal ideal lost some time around the 1900s. Every Liberal party was close to a de-facto socialist party by that point it seems.

Liberalism seems often so impotent a force in the world.

Just to point out, the Republican party for a long time was the liberal party (probably until Trump), so I don't know what you are talking about. It basically inacted a ton of libertarian aligned agendas.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Fact that it assumes / supposes rationality at all is a major flaw in the theory.

That's not what rational means in the context of economics. Economists do not typically look at Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and think: "Hmm, yeah this is a good behavioral framework to base our theories of society on."

In economic theory "rational" simply means that if people want something, they will try to obtain that something. If that something costs more than to get than they are willing to pay, they will not get it, but if the price is lower than they are willing to pay, they will do so. Most humans will exhibit this sort of behavior to enough of a degree to make economic theory work.