• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you a libertarian if...

Are you a libertarian if you support this?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 53.8%

  • No

    Votes: 12 46.2%
  • Total voters
    26
waas said:
Are you [still] a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?
Click to expand...

If you were not forced or coerced into taking said employment, then yes, libertarianism is compatible with employers exerting power over employees.
 
waas said:
You think creating a business is the same thing as creating wealth?
Click to expand...

In many ways it is.

Are you denying that it's the workers who maintain it through labor? Labor sustains the economy, not intellectual property.
Click to expand...

Labor sustains a weak economy. They do this because of a shortage in intellectual capital.

When unskilled workers are not a dime a dozen, then we can argue about their merit.
 
waas said:
Are you [still] a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?
Click to expand...

Of course. In fact, you are NOT a libertarian UNLESS you support that.
 
Fisher said:
Why not if you are criticizing me specifically? "Exploitation of labor" is what a job is. The widening gap between the rich and the poor may have to do with the welfare system trapping poor people, not lifting them up, and data-point liberalism avoids that the gap is largely stock performance, financial markets, and foreign investments that driving it, not the productivity of hourly domestic work. If you look at it over time, the high end mirrors the financial markets, but the low end is unaffected by the swings in financial markets.
Click to expand...

Excuse me for saying this, but you're a moron.

Yes, the low end has increased very little(though it has varied with the markets) but the high end has grown in leaps and bounds.

And the welfare program is poorly done, but it's still something we need - I'd much rather implement a version of the CCCs. In no way does a system that helps keep the poor alive responsible for their poverty - people on welfare live in depressing conditions, which is incentive for advancement in it's own right.
 
lizzie said:
If you were not forced or coerced into taking said employment, then yes, libertarianism is compatible with employers exerting power over employees.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Noncoercion really should go without saying, if coercion is involved it is slavery or some other crime.

And of course, this should also go without saying but in view of the fact that this thread was started by an avowed commie it probably needs to be explained, coercion means FORCIBLE coercion, not merely the threat of withholding money.
 
Last edited:
waas said:
Not true at all. Liberty and exploitation are mutually exclusive. :doh
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the kind of pinko nonsense I'm talking about. Firing an employee isn't coercion, this is a consequence of freedom of association.
 
waas said:
Excuse me for saying this, but you're a moron.

Yes, the low end has increased very little(though it has varied with the markets) but the high end has grown in leaps and bounds.

And the welfare program is poorly done, but it's still something we need - I'd much rather implement a version of the CCCs. In no way does a system that helps keep the poor alive responsible for their poverty - people on welfare live in depressing conditions, which is incentive for advancement in it's own right.
Click to expand...

A moron with a lot of degrees, a few businesses, and some work experience on Capitol Hill. You, by measure, have the idealism of a a 10 year old girl who still likes butterflies better than boys, but I have hopes for you. Why you would believe in a system that you yourself think is "poorly done" is beyond me, but far be it from me to interfere with one's freedom to bury their head in the sand (just so long as it is not on my property, because then I will either have to shoot you in the butt with rocksalt or have you arrested).
 
waas said:
I see, so as long as it's not the government infringing upon liberty, you're okay with it.

And a market like the one you describes does not exist. In reality, competition for jobs exists, and due to the need to sustain yourself, workers will take any position that helps them earns them a salary.
Click to expand...

In a relationship with government, one has no choice, without risking being deemed criminal. In a private business relationship, this is not the case. I voluntarily enter into a contract with an employer, and I have the discretion to break the contract at any time I desire to do so.
 
Fisher said:
A moron with a lot of degrees, a few businesses, and some work experience on Capitol Hill.
Click to expand...
Nothing against you personally, Fisher, but I should point out that none of those things necessarily preclude a person from being a moron.
 
lizzie said:
In a relationship with government, one has no choice, without risking being deemed criminal. In a private business relationship, this is not the case. I voluntarily enter into a contract with an employer, and I have the discretion to break the contract at any time I desire to do so.
Click to expand...

This point has already been addressed.

In a capitalist country competitive job market, what forces you to enter a contract is the need to generate income.
 
waas said:
Are you [still] a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "exert power"?
 
lizzie said:
In a relationship with government, one has no choice, without risking being deemed criminal. In a private business relationship, this is not the case. I voluntarily enter into a contract with an employer, and I have the discretion to break the contract at any time I desire to do so.
Click to expand...

This is why a communist can never be a libertarian. Liberty requires freedom of association, freedom of contract, and personal responsibility. Commies who want to inhibit those freedoms do not support liberty.
 
Guy Incognito said:
This is why a communist can never be a libertarian. Liberty requires freedom of association, freedom of contract, and personal responsibility. Commies who want to inhibit those freedoms do not support liberty.
Click to expand...

Get off my thread.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Nothing against you personally, Fisher, but I should point out that none of those things necessarily preclude a person from being a moron.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it makes me just wealthy enough not to care about idealistic rhetoric (though I find most people on Capitol Hill were morons which was why I left; most professionals are idiots, so I spend as little time with them as possible, but business owner's are the Bee's Knees.)
 
Federalist said:
What do you mean by "exert power"?
Click to expand...

You know, hire/fire, promote/demote, require overtime, set deadlines, etc.

For a communist, requiring a person to work for pay is "oppression!" ha!
 
Fisher said:
Perhaps, but it makes me just wealthy enough not to care about idealistic rhetoric (though I find most people on Capitol Hill were morons which was why I left; most professionals are idiots, so I spend as little time with them as possible, but business owner's are the Bee's Knees.)
Click to expand...

I agree with that whole post. Congrats on your good fortune.
 
Gipper said:
In many ways it is.



Labor sustains a weak economy. They do this because of a shortage in intellectual capital.

When unskilled workers are not a dime a dozen, then we can argue about their merit.
Click to expand...

Yes, but without labor there can be no economy at all. Ideas do have their merit, but someone simply profiting from intellectual property and the labor of others should not take precedence over a worker.
 
Last edited:
We've passed the point of voluntary contracts. There's no voluntary contract with the government. Their regulations should enable people to acquire property. Nothing to do with libertarianism, that's simply the whole idea behind capitalism and a property-owning democracy. And if 20% of the populace holds 85% of the wealth, there's not much libertarian about it. You can't reasonably suggest that's the result of individual intelligence and energy. It's a monopoly on wealth if you will.
 
waas said:
Yes, but without labor there can be no economy at all. Ideas do have their merit, but someone simply profiting from intellectual property and the labor should not take precedence over a laborer.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, everything has value. You just seem to keep implying that all value is uniform.

If the PCV valve in your car goes bad, do you replace the whole engine?
 
waas said:
You don't buy into my "bull****"? Is that why you address not one of my points? In any case, I know our politicians are "in bed" with corporations, which is why I'm a argue for campaign finance reform and restrictions geared at lessening the influence unaccountable entities have on politics and society.
Click to expand...
I addressed all of your one point. I'm also for campaign reform. I don't believe campaign contributions should be allowed in any form. A candidate should get an advertisement/campaign voucher, and it should be equal to all other candidates. I want to remove big business from politics.

I like that you used the term "unaccountable entities". What you don't however seem to realize is that our government has become one of those. I would like to neuter them instead of empowering them.


waas said:
Where do you get nationalist from our conversations? Go to my profile and read what I've written under the bio category, or, perhaps, my posts.
Click to expand...
I know where you stand, friend, you've made it clear in the past. You want more power for the government to manipulate the market, while I understand that it is the government power itself that creates the problem.

waas said:
Did I ever say that? First, you're only barely touching upon the quoted post. I believe that economic problems stem from the divide between the creators of wealth and the upper class.
Click to expand...
You blame the businesses for EVERYTHING. From your posts, the only logical conclusion can be that you believe all business owners are the monopoly man, raping freedom and sacking profits.

lizzie said:
Lol- spoken like a true authoritarian. :lol:
Click to expand...
Lizzie, this is one of the many reasons I love you!
 
waas said:
Yes, but without labor there can be no economy at all. Ideas do have their merit, but someone simply profiting from intellectual property and the labor of others should not take precedence over a worker.
Click to expand...

It depends on the product, and the employee base. If someone has a great idea, and that idea generates a product which is in demand, but the product is easy to produce from menial labor, the labor of others is pretty cheap. Any old Joe can do the job. If the employee has nothing special to offer, he can be easily replaced. If Any old Joe wants to compete in the marketplace, then he has the option of coming up with a competing product and hiring his own laborers.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A company without the power of government coercion can not infringe on liberty. People have a right to enter into voluntary contracts for work. How can one voluntarily have one's rights infringed?
Click to expand...


When, in effect, it becomes "accept employer abuse or starve with no job".


Which is often the case in bad economic times like these, for those who are not in a high-demand position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom