• 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
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.

And only a fool stops looking for a job while they are in a job they don't like or a job they feel like doesn't pay them enough. That is the other side of the coin that you ignore.
 
How do you gather that? The second bit, that is.

2 ways, professionals are marrying later and more often to professionals, in their same work area (think doctors marrying doctors).
Two doctors marrying each other can create a much larger household income.
Not only that but college educated, higher income people tend to stay married longer and/or seek divorce less often.

Where as, on the other hand, we're having more and more single parent households, with children.
It creates an illusion of household wage stagnation.
 
Is that a joke? Any entity exerting force over another is strictly against libertarian morality.

A short read:
Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles
Anarchism is something special in Libertarian.

An Anarchist is a Libertarian, that´s true,
but a Libertarian don´t have to be an Anarchist.

I recognize Anarchists as a Libertarian Kommunism, set more to kommunism than to libertarian.

But also an Anarchist is allowed to have employees.
And if you have employees you have power over them, very restricted in anarchism but you have.
 
Last edited:
Is that a joke? Any entity exerting force over another is strictly against libertarian morality.

No, aggression - the initiation of force - is against libertarian morality.


An employer "exerting power" over employees is not necessarily (and indeed, is unlikely to be) aggression, especially given that employment is voluntary, not compulsory. The association is voluntary and can be terminated by either party at any time.

So what is an example of exerting power, by your meaning? "Please go do this thing I'm paying you to go do" is technically an exertion of power, but it certainly isn't aggressive.
 
Yeah, that guy should clearly be fired.
So you agree 100% that SCOTUS has never made a decision you disagree with? LOL! I know better than that, yet, that IS the law of the land whether you like it or not.
 
Is that a joke? Any entity exerting force over another is strictly against libertarian morality.
Not giving somebody something they want is not force, no matter how hard you try to make it that way. I've been thinking about it, and the only logical conclusion is that your REAL issue with the world is the fundamental way that it works. People need food and shelter to live, and they need to go out and work to achieve those things. If a family were stranded on a tropical island, they would have to get up, and go look for food. They would have to try to cut down trees and form a house. It's all very labor intensive. If they don't want to work and just sit on the beach waiting for help, it's not going to go very well for them. That's simply the way it works.

Now, a businessman coming along and saying "Hey, I could use somebody to help me chop down trees, I'll pay you X amount to do this for me", the worker can take it or leave it. It is NOT the fault of the businessman that the person needs the money. The offer would never have even existed without the businessman, and the worker would've had to find something else to do.

I'm sorry, waas, but nobody OWES you a job. You act like people owe you ****, and they don't. If a McDonald's burger flipper makes the business a $8 an hour, why would McDonald's pay him more than $8 an hour? Why would anybody hire someone for a negative gain?

If someone is not being paid enough, they need to work on increasing their value instead of bitching and moaning about it.

Yeah, happy, that's the word. :lamo

If you're not happy with your job, you should probably do something about it.
 
Not giving somebody something they want is not force, no matter how hard you try to make it that way. I've been thinking about it, and the only logical conclusion is that your REAL issue with the world is the fundamental way that it works. People need food and shelter to live, and they need to go out and work to achieve those things. If a family were stranded on a tropical island, they would have to get up, and go look for food. They would have to try to cut down trees and form a house. It's all very labor intensive. If they don't want to work and just sit on the beach waiting for help, it's not going to go very well for them. That's simply the way it works.

Now, a businessman coming along and saying "Hey, I could use somebody to help me chop down trees, I'll pay you X amount to do this for me", the worker can take it or leave it. It is NOT the fault of the businessman that the person needs the money. The offer would never have even existed without the businessman, and the worker would've had to find something else to do.

I'm sorry, waas, but nobody OWES you a job. You act like people owe you ****, and they don't. If a McDonald's burger flipper makes the business a $8 an hour, why would McDonald's pay him more than $8 an hour? Why would anybody hire someone for a negative gain?

If someone is not being paid enough, they need to work on increasing their value instead of bitching and moaning about it.

If you're not happy with your job, you should probably do something about it.
While I might agree with you in general, you have painted a false illusion here. Your story assumes there is an alternative to working for the businessman cutting down trees. IRL, there really isn't an alternative. In fact, that was one of the foundations of Locke's philosophy, that everyone had a commons they could live off of - but the commons he was talking about are now gone. You no longer have the option to build a house from logs on a vacant piece of land (without somehow buying the land) and if you start picking apples to eat (from apple trees you haven't somehow bought) chances are you'll land in jail for stealing and trespassing.
 
While I might agree with you in general, you have painted a false illusion here. Your story assumes there is an alternative to working for the businessman cutting down trees. IRL, there really isn't an alternative. In fact, that was one of the foundations of Locke's philosophy, that everyone had a commons they could live off of - but the commons he was talking about are now gone. You no longer have the option to build a house from logs on a vacant piece of land (without somehow buying the land) and if you start picking apples to eat (from apple trees you haven't somehow bought) chances are you'll land in jail for stealing and trespassing.

Although true, it doesn't change the premise. I don't see how for instance, I could be held responsible for the nature of our economy, or that I'm "exploiting" a worker, by offering him a job.
 
Although true, it doesn't change the premise. I don't see how for instance, I could be held responsible for the nature of our economy, or that I'm "exploiting" a worker, by offering him a job.
Except in very rare cases no one industry, and certainly not one business, can be held "responsible" for our economy. The economy is (usually) molded by the combined power of the players involved and which way they are moving - the sum of their vectors (direction x economic power), if you will. This includes government and it's economic power as well but "government" isn't individually responsible any more than businesses. They all add their vector to the equation.

As far as exploiting workers go, I can see where someone who disagrees with capitalism would see it as worker exploitation because there are no other alternatives. In America we are forced to either live on handouts (from whatever source) or participate in the capitalist system. Generally, we're forced to participate in the System even if we live off handouts since we (usually) must buy food. While you and I have no problem with this because we accept the system, others who disagree would certainly see it differently.


And just as a note, some workers are exploited - especially during the worst of economic times.
 
Last edited:
Except in very rare cases no one industry, and certainly not one business, can be held "responsible" for our economy. The economy is (usually) molded by the combined power of the players involved and which way they are moving - the sum of their vectors (direction x economic power), if you will. This includes government and it's economic power as well but "government" isn't individually responsible any more than businesses. They all add their vector to the equation.

As far as exploiting workers go, I can see where someone who disagrees with capitalism would see it as worker exploitation because there are no other alternatives. In America we are forced to either live on handouts (from whatever source) or participate in the capitalist system. Generally, we're forced to participate in the System even if we live off handouts since we (usually) must buy food. While you and I have no problem with this because we accept the system, others who disagree would certainly see it differently.


And just as a note, some workers are exploited - especially during the worst of economic times.

I totally, completely get what you're saying, especially with the vectors (go trig!), but I have to disagree with the government part. The politicians are allowing themselves to be bought, and the resulting corporatism and protectionism screws up the way the game is supposed to be fairly played. Why we will prosecute Bradley Manning for treason for exposing war crimes, while our very politicians are guilty of high treason for being bought and sold like packs of cigarettes, is beyond me, but that's another topic.

The fact is, some people's labor simply isn't going to be worth a fine standard of living. Let me give you an example. Let's say I open a fast food restaurant, Alpaca Burgers (No Alpacas used). I hire a burger flipper. I've determined at 20 burgers an hour, he earns the company a gain of $10 per hour. I then offer him a job at $8 per hour. $10 is the absolute maximum value of his worth to me, after that I'm losing money. Now, for the socialists that live in a dream world, let's propose a scenario. $8 an hour really isn't much to live on, so let's double the pay of every low end worker, and I'm not allowed to lay anybody off. So he's making $16/hr now. An Alpaca burger that used to cost $5 will now cost near $10. Every other item in our society produced by low end labor will also nearly double in price.

Looking at the net standard of living that this guy could afford before, and after, the raise, it really wouldn't have changed much. If he wanted to go take his family out for a dinner, what maybe used to cost $40, may now be $80, because all of the restaurant staff, the cook, the waitress, and so on, are now making double.

Let's also now mention that the middle and upper class that used to buy my Alpaca Burgers are no longer interested in paying $10 a burger, and I now go out of business. That burger flipper no longer has a job. The only way for someone to improve their standard of living is to improve their worth and in turn earn more. Distorting the nature of things and paying someone more than their worth will only bring everything tumbling down.

I get that there are some really ****ed up big businesses out there, totally get it, but that is not the majority of businesses.
 
I totally, completely get what you're saying, especially with the vectors (go trig!), but I have to disagree with the government part. The politicians are allowing themselves to be bought, and the resulting corporatism and protectionism screws up the way the game is supposed to be fairly played. Why we will prosecute Bradley Manning for treason for exposing war crimes, while our very politicians are guilty of high treason for being bought and sold like packs of cigarettes, is beyond me, but that's another topic.
But government's contribution to the direction of our economy is the same as any other's - direction x power. The fact that the direction is being (somewhat) guided by businesses paying money to candidates - or even advertising (politics) on their own! - doesn't change that.

I tend to agree with your assessment of business interfering with politics and like a couple of your solutions. ((I've said for years we should sell the airwaves and broadcast licenses partly in terms of political airtime.)) Sadly, I don't see business interference changing anytime soon.

The fact is, some people's labor simply isn't going to be worth a fine standard of living. Let me give you an example. Let's say I open a fast food restaurant, Alpaca Burgers (No Alpacas used). I hire a burger flipper. I've determined at 20 burgers an hour, he earns the company a gain of $10 per hour. I then offer him a job at $8 per hour. $10 is the absolute maximum value of his worth to me, after that I'm losing money. Now, for the socialists that live in a dream world, let's propose a scenario. $8 an hour really isn't much to live on, so let's double the pay of every low end worker, and I'm not allowed to lay anybody off. So he's making $16/hr now. An Alpaca burger that used to cost $5 will now cost near $10. Every other item in our society produced by low end labor will also nearly double in price.

Looking at the net standard of living that this guy could afford before, and after, the raise, it really wouldn't have changed much. If he wanted to go take his family out for a dinner, what maybe used to cost $40, may now be $80, because all of the restaurant staff, the cook, the waitress, and so on, are now making double.

Let's also now mention that the middle and upper class that used to buy my Alpaca Burgers are no longer interested in paying $10 a burger, and I now go out of business. That burger flipper no longer has a job. The only way for someone to improve their standard of living is to improve their worth and in turn earn more. Distorting the nature of things and paying someone more than their worth will only bring everything tumbling down.
You'll get no argument from me there.

But people still need room and board and at least a small amount of entertainment in some form. (Fun doesn't have to cost a lot of money, though.) The biggest problem most poor people have is the stigma that's attached to their situation. Americans need to understand exactly what you're saying, that some people simply cannot be better than they are - at least not economically. If we could get rid of the stigma, the constant Keep Up With the Jones' (KUWTJ) attitude that gets hammered into our heads 24/7, things would be a lot better.


I'm not gonna' hold my breath, though. At the heart of changing the KUWTJ attitude is the same problem as stopping businesses from meddling in government. SCOTUS says we can't stop any individual - even corporations - from voicing their opinion publicly, which includes commercials both for products and candidates/policies.

I get that there are some really ****ed up big businesses out there, totally get it, but that is not the majority of businesses.
I agree, it's not the majority of businesses - not even close - but laws still must exist to protect people (workers) from that very small number.
 
Last edited:
But government's contribution to the direction of our economy is the same as any other's - direction x power. The fact that the direction is being (somewhat) guided by businesses paying money to candidates - or even advertising (politics) on their own! - doesn't change the situation.

I agree, it's not the majority - not even close - but laws still must exist to protect people (workers) from that very small number.
This is where we're disagreeing. The government is supposed to be the rule moderator, who sets up the rules of the game so that every player is on the same level, then to let the game be played. Instead what we have is the rule moderator making rules that favor one set of people instead of being equal. The moderators are slipping money from the monopoly bank to some players to make them richer and more powerful, providing mulligans, and designing the game to **** the little guy.

As long as we let the government play master market manipulator, they're going to favor the people who pay them most. Personally I'd like to outlaw any kind of campaign contributions or favors promised to all politicians, and any politician that gets caught in dereliction of their duty by accepting funds from special interests, should be hung on the steps of capital hill. It's high treason and we tolerate it.

I'd like to finish my point off with a quote:
"Don't hate the player, hate the game" (And specifically those who designed the game)
 
Not giving somebody something they want is not force, no matter how hard you try to make it that way. I've been thinking about it, and the only logical conclusion is that your REAL issue with the world is the fundamental way that it works. People need food and shelter to live, and they need to go out and work to achieve those things. If a family were stranded on a tropical island, they would have to get up, and go look for food. They would have to try to cut down trees and form a house. It's all very labor intensive. If they don't want to work and just sit on the beach waiting for help, it's not going to go very well for them. That's simply the way it works.

Now, a businessman coming along and saying "Hey, I could use somebody to help me chop down trees, I'll pay you X amount to do this for me", the worker can take it or leave it. It is NOT the fault of the businessman that the person needs the money. The offer would never have even existed without the businessman, and the worker would've had to find something else to do.

I'm sorry, waas, but nobody OWES you a job. You act like people owe you ****, and they don't. If a McDonald's burger flipper makes the business a $8 an hour, why would McDonald's pay him more than $8 an hour? Why would anybody hire someone for a negative gain?

If someone is not being paid enough, they need to work on increasing their value instead of bitching and moaning about it.

This is pathetic. You can't form a cohesive argument, so you start attacking my motivations. No, nobody owes me a job and that is not the point. What I'm presenting to you is the irony of our current business structure - one where the employer lives off the labors of a worker, not only stealing from him, but controlling the conditions of his life. And we as a society don't value the contributions those that keep us afloat, but the intellectual property that holds one class above another.
 
Anarchism is something special in Libertarian.

An Anarchist is a Libertarian, that´s true,
but a Libertarian don´t have to be an Anarchist.

I recognize Anarchists as a Libertarian Kommunism, set more to kommunism than to libertarian.

But also an Anarchist is allowed to have employees.
And if you have employees you have power over them, very restricted in anarchism but you have.

You clearly didn't read the paper.
 
No, aggression - the initiation of force - is against libertarian morality.


An employer "exerting power" over employees is not necessarily (and indeed, is unlikely to be) aggression, especially given that employment is voluntary, not compulsory. The association is voluntary and can be terminated by either party at any time.

So what is an example of exerting power, by your meaning? "Please go do this thing I'm paying you to go do" is technically an exertion of power, but it certainly isn't aggressive.

The morality of a libertarian, though we may disagree on how to categorize it, is one that pushes free association and egalitarianism as a policy measure. Equality does not exist where one stands above another.
 
So no one can pay you to do a job in "a libertarian society," is that what you're saying? Because, well, no.

You're still talking about a voluntary association, a contract, an exchange in which both parties are providing something the other party wants.
 
So no one can pay you to do a job in "a libertarian society," is that what you're saying? Because, well, no.

You're still talking about a voluntary association, a contract, an exchange in which both parties are providing something the other party wants.

That's exactly what he's saying. His definition, apparently, of libertarianism, is the government taking all of the money from the citizens at the point of a gun, then redistributing it all evenly so nobody has to be "coerced" into working. It's actually quite hilarious, don't stop him, he's on a roll.

The morality of a libertarian, though we may disagree on how to categorize it, is one that pushes free association and egalitarianism as a policy measure. Equality does not exist where one stands above another.

Yes, it is, by entering into a voluntary work contract you are using your right to freely associate. You are also not discriminated against while doing so because it is an egalitarian system. You're trying to claim that the government stepping in and forcing the employer to pay more isn't coercion or force. In reality, it defies the entirety of libertarianism. So sorry, bud, you're going to have to hate libertarianism for what it is, not for what it isn't.
 
That's exactly what he's saying. His definition, apparently, of libertarianism, is the government taking all of the money from the citizens at the point of a gun, then redistributing it all evenly so nobody has to be "coerced" into working. It's actually quite hilarious, don't stop him, he's on a roll.

Wait, what? That CAN'T be what he's saying... :shock: That would be completely absurd. That would involve permanent and extreme coercion.
 
So you agree 100% that SCOTUS has never made a decision you disagree with? LOL! I know better than that, yet, that IS the law of the land whether you like it or not.

In this case your argument is one of the things the founders where fighting against.
 
This is pathetic. You can't form a cohesive argument, so you start attacking my motivations. No, nobody owes me a job and that is not the point. What I'm presenting to you is the irony of our current business structure - one where the employer lives off the labors of a worker, not only stealing from him, but controlling the conditions of his life. And we as a society don't value the contributions those that keep us afloat, but the intellectual property that holds one class above another.

Really? This current structure is where the employer steals from the worker? How is that possible when the employer is the one who is paying the worker? How is that possible if the worker voluntarily applied for the job? How does the employer control the conditions of the worker's life when the worker can leave at anytime?
 
Really? This current structure is where the employer steals from the worker? How is that possible when the employer is the one who is paying the worker? How is that possible if the worker voluntarily applied for the job? How does the employer control the conditions of the worker's life when the worker can leave at anytime?

To my, and many others' chagrin, Marx was actually the first to point this out. That to make a profit, the employer must extract money either by lowering the employees' salaries, or by increasing the price to the consumer - the latter would make hinder their ability to compete in the market.

And, as I pointed out to our furry friend, a market like the one you guys imagine does not exist. In reality, competition for positions exists, as does the need to generate income. Especially in the case of low-skilled workers, there's no guarantee of a position after quitting, much less a better one. Moreso, Employers don't need to compete for laborers, so nothing aside from government forces them to set reasonable wages.
 
Yes, it is, by entering into a voluntary work contract you are using your right to freely associate. You are also not discriminated against while doing so because it is an egalitarian system. You're trying to claim that the government stepping in and forcing the employer to pay more isn't coercion or force. In reality, it defies the entirety of libertarianism. So sorry, bud, you're going to have to hate libertarianism for what it is, not for what it isn't.

I implore you to actually read what I've written on the topic of these contracts you hold to such an esteem. Ignoring something doesn't make it go away.
 
This is where we're disagreeing. The government is supposed to be the rule moderator, who sets up the rules of the game so that every player is on the same level, then to let the game be played. Instead what we have is the rule moderator making rules that favor one set of people instead of being equal. The moderators are slipping money from the monopoly bank to some players to make them richer and more powerful, providing mulligans, and designing the game to **** the little guy.

As long as we let the government play master market manipulator, they're going to favor the people who pay them most. Personally I'd like to outlaw any kind of campaign contributions or favors promised to all politicians, and any politician that gets caught in dereliction of their duty by accepting funds from special interests, should be hung on the steps of capital hill. It's high treason and we tolerate it.

I'd like to finish my point off with a quote:
"Don't hate the player, hate the game" (And specifically those who designed the game)
We're not disagreeing at all. I just said the cause of the government's direction doesn't effect the vector method --- and that I didn't expect the current system to change anytime soon (but not because I don't want it to change).

In fact, I DO agree with you that business should have very little input into government beyond government asking for their opinion and expertise at times to make more informed decisions. Every elected official should consider what their constituents want, and business owners are constituents, too, and need to be heard. The problems start when the business owners are given preferential treatment. The People (as a whole) should always be #1 in a politician's decisions, not a distant second at best.
 
Last edited:
In this case your argument is one of the things the founders where fighting against.
The Founders didn't set up the Supreme Court to resolve disputes by interpreting the law? :shock:
 
Last edited:
The Founders didn't set up the Supreme Court to interpret the law? :shock:

I'm talking about the reason behind the eighth amendment and why excessive bail is mentioned.
 
Back
Top Bottom