Libertarianism as the Handmaiden to Socialism

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
I mean, in the perfect utopia there is no government either. It's AnCap heaven. Obviously, this doesn't work, as even if you get it set up, warlords take over.

I mean, in the end, the money quote when it comes to designing governments to me always goes back to Federalist 51:
The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
(Emphasis added.)
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
I think we've missed the obvious lossy jaw solution: what if we reached optimal level of lossy jaw?

From my recollection, by the time it was banned you already had a higher safety measures so it took a lot of breaches of protocols to actually get lossy jaw from the work. It wasnt safe safe, but it was more smoking dangerous.

The reason the private banning were so toothless was because by that point, it wasnt all that much more dangerous than normal industrial work.

On the issue od the NAP, I think it's error does seem to, to more clearly state it, starts from a poor primise of not being agressed on.

It implicitly buys into the rosouian idea of people being born free and everywhere in chains.

This is not the case. As we've acknowledged, NAP doesn't apply to children. You are born dependent, in bondage, to your parents. So, at basic, NAP doesn't apply for, what, the first 15? 20? 30 years of life?

Everyone is born in chains, and with 20-40 years of hard work, may earn freedom. Thats how long it takes of aggression to force the NAP into someone.

Likewise, the only way to have a meaningful NAP is to agress against everyone who is not a libertarian until they yield to the principle.

The "libertarians want to take over the world to leave you alone" is a joke, but has the grain of truth that imposing libertarianism would require wielding an immense amount of aggression against, well, a majority of people.

As to an earlier discussion, of course communists push liberty. Look at any of their rhetoric, and how many organizations were call x liberation y. The communist subversion of Catholicism is literally called liberation theology.

Liberty and freedom are core parts of the rhetoric of communism. That they don't generally provise that, or provide a form of liberty that libertarians like, is immaterial to the discussion.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
I think we've missed the obvious lossy jaw solution: what if we reached optimal level of lossy jaw?

From my recollection, by the time it was banned you already had a higher safety measures so it took a lot of breaches of protocols to actually get lossy jaw from the work. It wasnt safe safe, but it was more smoking dangerous.

The reason the private banning were so toothless was because by that point, it wasnt all that much more dangerous than normal industrial work.
This is not true, cases of Phossy Jaw did not begin to decline until 1906, after white phosphorus was made illegal.

On the issue od the NAP, I think it's error does seem to, to more clearly state it, starts from a poor primise of not being agressed on.

It implicitly buys into the rosouian idea of people being born free and everywhere in chains.

This is not the case. As we've acknowledged, NAP doesn't apply to children. You are born dependent, in bondage, to your parents. So, at basic, NAP doesn't apply for, what, the first 15? 20? 30 years of life?

Everyone is born in chains, and with 20-40 years of hard work, may earn freedom. Thats how long it takes of aggression to force the NAP into someone.

Likewise, the only way to have a meaningful NAP is to agress against everyone who is not a libertarian until they yield to the principle.

The "libertarians want to take over the world to leave you alone" is a joke, but has the grain of truth that imposing libertarianism would require wielding an immense amount of aggression against, well, a majority of people.

As to an earlier discussion, of course communists push liberty. Look at any of their rhetoric, and how many organizations were call x liberation y. The communist subversion of Catholicism is literally called liberation theology.

Liberty and freedom are core parts of the rhetoric of communism. That they don't generally provise that, or provide a form of liberty that libertarians like, is immaterial to the discussion.
I tend to agree. The NAP has serious issues in that, well, it's a pact and unless you have some higher tier of power enforcing it, it's only as good as the word of the person swearing to the pact, and we've seen through history how often that fails.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I tend to agree. The NAP has serious issues in that, well, it's a pact and unless you have some higher tier of power enforcing it, it's only as good as the word of the person swearing to the pact, and we've seen through history how often that fails.
No, the NAP very much isn't a pact. It's a morality. You don't need others in order to follow the morality.

This is not the case. As we've acknowledged, NAP doesn't apply to children. You are born dependent, in bondage, to your parents. So, at basic, NAP doesn't apply for, what, the first 15? 20? 30 years of life?

Everyone is born in chains, and with 20-40 years of hard work, may earn freedom. Thats how long it takes of aggression to force the NAP into someone.
Also wrong. The NAP applies when you first become alive (not trying to get split off into a tangent about abortion here, so please don't). Yes, it applies to interactions between parents and kids. How does this work? Work in an irrevocable duty to care for the resulting child as part of consenting to sex, which means the child doesn't aggress the parent when the child demands care, and note that most child discipline is an agreed to condition by the kid of staying in the house. Now children can't generally fully consent to things, but there's a number of ways to not aggress against children and raise them.

On the issue od the NAP, I think it's error does seem to, to more clearly state it, starts from a poor primise of not being agressed on.

It implicitly buys into the rosouian idea of people being born free and everywhere in chains.
This is also wrong. It very much does not depend on this. The NAP doesn't require the premise of starting in a non agressed upon state. For example, whether you are born into slavery or are enslaved, in either case you have the right to kill anyone who tries to keep you there and escape.

Likewise, the only way to have a meaningful NAP is to agress against everyone who is not a libertarian until they yield to the principle.

The "libertarians want to take over the world to leave you alone" is a joke, but has the grain of truth that imposing libertarianism would require wielding an immense amount of aggression against, well, a majority of people.
Again, wrong entirely. The NAP is a morality. We'd like other people to follow it, and we'd like a society to follow it, but that's not necessary.

As to an earlier discussion, of course communists push liberty. Look at any of their rhetoric, and how many organizations were call x liberation y. The communist subversion of Catholicism is literally called liberation theology.

Liberty and freedom are core parts of the rhetoric of communism. That they don't generally provise that, or provide a form of liberty that libertarians like, is immaterial to the discussion.
No, they very much don't. They rename liberty to mean equality. That's what liberation theology is. On top of that, they don't promise freedom, they promise equality.

Finally, you are convicting libertarianism for providing something that another ideology lies about. That isn't a viable attack, and is incredibly material to the discussion.

Please, please, actually do some research on what the NAP actually means next time.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
In that case, everyone has an unlimited right to agress according to the principle, which makes it somewhat mute, no? Everyone is agressed on all the time. As as you've said, other people agrees against other people, which gives you as a third party the right to agress against whichever party you determine is the aggressor.

How can you claim libertarianism has brought something when it has no power? Communism at least gains enough power to be said to fail.

Everyone speaks to some form of liberty. Even Marx talked of the workers shedding their chains. Even the Catholics talk of freedom when talking about banning porn.

It comes down to what one wishes to be free of and free for.

And morality is a pact, practically.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
In that case, everyone has an unlimited right to agress according to the principle, which makes it somewhat mute, no? Everyone is agressed on all the time.
So you only have a right to agress until you aren't agressed, and only to the agressors. This isn't unlimited. So yeah, everyone has a moral right to not pay taxes or register for the draft, and resist attempts to force them to do so. But in practical terms, that's difficult. Fortunately, libertarianism doesn't demand resistance, just allows it.

Everyone speaks to some form of liberty. Even Marx talked of the workers shedding their chains. Even the Catholics talk of freedom when talking about banning porn.
So what your saying here then, is that your entire argument comes from an accident of language that ascribes multiple meanings to the same word, and that if we actually separate those meanings (which everybody in those ideologies does), that your argument falls apart? Cause that sounds accurate to me.

How can you claim libertarianism has brought something when it has no power? Communism at least gains enough power to be said to fail.
Libertarian ideals basically control the Supreme Court right now, so that's wrong too.
And morality is a pact, practically.
This isn't true either. Morality is something one decides to follow for themselves. No one needs to allow you to be moral. You do it unilaterally.

Again, please actually read up about the NAP before continuing. These aren't good points.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
This is not true, cases of Phossy Jaw did not begin to decline until 1906, after white phosphorus was made i

While thats a lot of info, it doesnt seem to have the information necessary actually determine what I asked, namely relative risk, and how it changed.

As far as I could tell, it mostly just said it didn't go away until it was banned, but says nothing of frequency and danger level, or especially change over time.

And of course, comparing it to other industrial work.

edit

@Abhorsen except it is literally structured as a pact: I agree to not agress against you if you agree not to agress against me. Or, apparently, anyone else. Thus, the NAP is a pact that the NAP individual "imposes" upon everyone else. Which is how most all morality works: I will do x if you do y. The NAP works in the exact same way.
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
@Abhorsen except it is literally structured as a pact: I agree to not agress against you if you agree not to agress against me. Or, apparently, anyone else. Thus, the NAP is a pact that the NAP individual "imposes" upon everyone else. Which is how most all morality works: I will do x if you do y. The NAP works in the exact same way.
You apparently don't know what pacts are, because what you are talking about is not a pact, and also not the NAP. First, pacts are agreements between two people that both knowingly make. But I don't need the other person to agree to anything to do the NAP. Whenever someone interacts with me, I'll act according to the NAP, whether or not that person agrees with it. Frequently, they don't agree to it, like someone attacking you won't agree with you defending yourself. That's yet another reason why the NAP is not a pact.

Second, the NAP doesn't allow you to agress at all. I did misspeak when I said the below:
So you only have a right to agress until you aren't agressed, and only to the agressors.
The NAP allows only self defense, which isn't aggression. For example, if a person punched me, 5 days later I can't out of the blue punch him back, as it's no longer self defense.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
While thats a lot of info, it doesnt seem to have the information necessary actually determine what I asked, namely relative risk, and how it changed.

As far as I could tell, it mostly just said it didn't go away until it was banned, but says nothing of frequency and danger level, or especially change over time.
If you want to take that course, prove your assertion and show your evidence that it declined, that relative risk changed, show your proof that frequency and danger level changed over time.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
If you want to take that course, prove your assertion and show your evidence that it declined, that relative risk changed, show your proof that frequency and danger level changed over time.

Oh, I certainly don't have that evidence to prove my point either, simply pointing out that what you provided does not seem to prove your point either. And I've been libertarian long enough to be suspicious of the official narrative. Its quite possible your right, what you gave simply isn't adequate proof. I've heard enough about the deadlyness of black lung and smoking while being surrounded by old miners and smokers to know there's generally a large amount of overstatement in a health campain.

It also possible it was in your links somewhere, but I missed the relevant paragraph.

Edit

@Abhorsen

Eh, people are subject to one way agreements/pacts all the time. My presence in a location subjects me to "agreements" on whoever the owner of that space is, whether government or private. The time limit doesn't really make sense for a NAP either. That seems just sort of tacked on. Hell, practical self defense often requires a pre-emtive use of force.
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Eh, people are subject to one way agreements/pacts all the time. My presence in a location subjects me to "agreements" on whoever the owner of that space is, whether government or private.
This is true. These are agreements that are made because you entered someone else's property, and they have the right to kick you out, and thus the right to make rules about being there. But these are agreements that both parties consciously agree to. You, by going onto the property knowing the rules, or at least knowing that there are rules and how to find them, have agreed to a set of rules. The owner of the property, by setting out the set of rules and letting people come on to their property if they follow those rules, also has agreed to the pact.

Note that crucially, both parties have given some form of consent to this.

This isn't comparable to the NAP. No agreement is made with the NAP. I don't need your consent to act according to it. You might not agree with my ability to use force to defend myself, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't ask or require your permission. It doesn't require that the you know what rules I follow, or have any idea what I might do to an aggressor. It is entirely non-consensual, as you need no ones consent to guard your life or property.

Because there both parties don't need to consent, this isn't a pact. There is no agreement.

Do you see the difference?

The time limit doesn't really make sense for a NAP either. That seems just sort of tacked on.
There's no hard or fast time limit. The hard and fast rule is that one may not agress. after getting punched, four days later if I see the puncher, and he doesn't seem to want to punch me, I don't get to punch him back, because that would be a new act of aggression.

Hell, practical self defense often requires a pre-emtive use of force.
Whether preemptive self defense counts as aggression is a hard question to determine, and beyond the scope of the thread. But the answer has little to do with practicality, and much more to do with morals.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
eh, it seems like a distinction without a difference. I was born on this plot of soil. I can do nothing but move through it. Plenty of the place I go, I am compelled to be. I have a whole bunch of obligations and responsibilities into which I am born, and I have no authority or right to challenge. Every person I interact with follows certain rules by basis of proximity. My agreement to them or not is totally immaterial, just as my agreement or not to a Libertarians idea of the NAP is immaterial to the Libertarian. I am subject to his NAP to the degree he feels the power to enforce it.

This is sort of social contract nonsense of my greatx1000 grandfather agreed to some social contract 1 million years ago, therefore my relation is consensual. Most pacts people are involved in are probably non-consensual.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
eh, it seems like a distinction without a difference. I was born on this plot of soil. I can do nothing but move through it. Plenty of the place I go, I am compelled to be. I have a whole bunch of obligations and responsibilities into which I am born, and I have no authority or right to challenge. Every person I interact with follows certain rules by basis of proximity. My agreement to them or not is totally immaterial, just as my agreement or not to a Libertarians idea of the NAP is immaterial to the Libertarian. I am subject to his NAP to the degree he feels the power to enforce it.
Kind of right, both these things (obligations that come from being born in a country, and dealing with someone else's NAP) are non consensual on your part, and thus aren't pacts or agreements.

The difference is that with the country obligation stuff, according to the NAP, you have no obligation to obey them, and every right to not obey them and resist with force those who try to make you. Now can you do it successfully? maybe not. But libertarian morality doesn't force you to resist.

This is sort of social contract nonsense of my greatx1000 grandfather agreed to some social contract 1 million years ago, therefore my relation is consensual. Most pacts people are involved in are probably non-consensual.
No, the definition of a pact is that it is consensual, which makes the social contract not a pact that you are a part of. Your great x1000 grandfather was, but he had no right to bind you. Now if you immigrate and become a citizen, that's a different story, as you are swearing an oath then. But other than that, you are good.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
Eh, as I said I'm not sure its really a distinction with much of a difference.

But, I think I'm developing the nuances of my thinking. I more or less still agree with the initial arguments put forward by the initial argument, namely that libertarians/liberals, which you yourself seem to use somewhat interchangeably (I'm not sure how you can reasonably claim the supreme court is libertarian if your not treating it as a synonym for liberal, in the classical form) act as a dissolving agent for any existing institutions/bonds of people, which leaves everything vulnerable to take over by socialists.

Because, as much as you protest it, it really does seem that Libertarianism implicitly assumes, at least in its mainstream form, a Rousseauian assumption of a default of freedom. That, in general, freedom comes from a deconstruction of oppressions, rather than the construction, though many oppressions, of a healthy, functional individual deserving and capable of freedom.

And, as said, I understand you protest this, but it fits with what I have seen of libertarians and their literature. They would deny it, since they don't like Rousseau, but its not uncommon for ideologies to deny things that are obviously part of their thinking: for example, almost everyone when asked directly will say they don't believe in the blank slate, but by their actions really, really seem to do so.

This I think inevitably put libertarianism innately on the left in the Petersonian paradigm, where he seems, at its most basic, to divide it between the pro order and pro chaos. Libertarianism is innately more pro chaos. That that chaos often creates another layer of great Tyranny (though often a fairly disordered one) is nether here nor there.

This I think will generally leave the Libertarians in opposition to anyone who wishes to be constructive of, well, nearly anything in a political sense. Politics at its base is about rewarding friends and hurting your enemies. Libertarianism is bad at doing either: its bad at giving rewards to its friends, its universal ideals not really being effective at targeting its friends in particular, while it doesn't hold as a virtue holding the grudge long enough to reach a point in power to deploy their wrath.

Thus, any good thing a libertarian is likely to do one will benefit whether they support them or not (the libertarian will defend the free speech rights of the communist to argue for the silencing of the libertarian) while crossing a libertarian has absolutely no danger, because they don't hold the grudge.

Which creates an immensely impotent political force.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Oh, I certainly don't have that evidence to prove my point either, simply pointing out that what you provided does not seem to prove your point either. And I've been libertarian long enough to be suspicious of the official narrative. Its quite possible your right, what you gave simply isn't adequate proof. I've heard enough about the deadlyness of black lung and smoking while being surrounded by old miners and smokers to know there's generally a large amount of overstatement in a health campain.
Point of order, as the person making the allegation the burden is on you to prove your point, not call for me to disprove it, especially if all you've got is "I've heard stories."

As it is, your claims fly in the face of evidence already presented, we know that the cost of putting safety measures in sank the Salvation Army match factory so it rather beggars belief that the factories that put it out of business were using quality safety measures. I'm utterly unsurprised you're unable to find the slightest shred of proof for your imagined safety features beyond "I heard this anecdote about somebody in an unrelated field once."

Fortunately, despite the fact that I should not be obligated to disprove your fake news, I have proof that your claims are based on known disinformation and fraud.

Actual Proof said:
In the AALL investigation, economist John B. Andrews documented 150 cases of phossy jaw
after investigating 15 of 16 match factories in the United States. Four of the cases were fatal. The
Bureau of Labor published his report in 1910. Since no state at that time, except Ohio in the case
of children, had acted to control the problem, this report resulted in the White Phosphorus Match
Act, which Congress enacted on April 9, 1912

...

Based on these findings, the Illinois legislature enacted an occupational health law that year
requiring monthly physical examinations of workers exposed to phosphorus.(7) Both John
Andrews and Alice Hamilton discovered high incidence of phossy jaw despite assurances by
American medical professionals that match factories were kept "scrupulously" clean, and that
this was not a problem in the United States.(8)
The claims of "scrupulously" clean factories reducing phossy jaw were falsehoods, used to attempt to push against laws to protect workers. We can also see how the rate of infection was actually increasing, as per the previous links you dismissed, the US had 100 cases in 109, but 150 by 1910. In 1912, the US finally passed a federal law against them.

 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
@Abhorsen

Why should people follow the non aggression principle?
There's a couple ways to argue for it, including that it's axiomatic because to argue against it means you want to harm people who don't deserve it, but ultimately it is an axiom that can be accepted or rejected. Just like all moral systems, it rests on an unproveable belief.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker


Anyone ever hear of John Tamny? He's an editor for Forbes and RealClearMarkets.com, and has written a book on the economy about how "easy" it is to have growth if you just leave it along and let it work. He's also purports to be a libertarian, and in this video from Tim Pool, he argues against enforcing our borders and the very concept of private property. Apparently, this is what passes for a "libertarian".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top