Are you a libertarian if...

MoSurveyor · Jan 23, 2013

Henrin said:
I'm talking about the reason behind the eighth amendment and why excessive bail is mentioned.

What, specifically, is "excessive" and who decides that?

RabidAlpaca · Jan 23, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
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.

And who gives big business the preferential treatment? The politicians. Therefore, it starts with them. If you really understand vectors, you'll understand that stronger vectors will effect the net some more than others. The government is not only that, but it also manipulates how the vectors are calculated.

waas said:
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.

I don't know what happened to you bro, you and I used to be able to debate in spite of disagreeing on everything. You've changed.

MoSurveyor · Jan 23, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
And who gives big business the preferential treatment? The politicians. Therefore, it starts with them.

I agree, they do - and we continue to allow it. With SCOTUS siding with the political manipulators, though, (IIRC, they called it "free speech" for corporations :-/) it's going to take a LOT to change the system because we can't stop private industry from paying for political advertisements.

But I do disagree that it starts with them. It starts - and must always start - with us, the voters. If we continue to elect and re-elect those people then it's no one's fault but our own. Of course, we seldom have other choices but we could have if we really pushed that direction. We do still need a good way to put the Independents on a somewhat equal footing to the popular political groups, though, or it will never happen. Your ideas on advertising would be a good start.

RabidAlpaca said:
If you really understand vectors, you'll understand that stronger vectors will effect the net some more than others. The government is not only that, but it also manipulates how the vectors are calculated.

The government can certainly increase or decrease an industry's impact on the economy. I'm not sure what you mean by how they're calculated, though. If you mean economic indicators, I have to disagree. US government economic information is some of the best and most well-watched data in the world. If someone (even the government) was playing with the numbers someone else would find out in short order and yell. I do agree that politicians use the public's ignorance of economic data and terms to their advantage when arguing their policies.

waas · Jan 23, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
I don't know what happened to you bro, you and I used to be able to debate in spite of disagreeing on everything. You've changed.

I actually feel the same way. I don't think you're of poor motivations, merely mistaken in how you define liberty. And despite my efforts, this debate was a dismal failure. It's simply that I understand your morality, and you in good faith side with thieves over the exploited. So, perhaps we should trade the titles of literature. :shrug:

Gipper · Jan 23, 2013

waas said:
I actually feel the same way. I don't think you're of poor motivations, merely mistaken in how you define liberty. And despite my efforts, this debate was a dismal failure. It's simply that I understand your morality, and you in good faith side with thieves over the exploited. So, perhaps we should trade the titles of literature. :shrug:

He's better than I am. I already dismissed your drivel when you used words like "exploited".

waas · Jan 23, 2013

Gipper said:
He's better than I am. I already dismissed your drivel when you used words like "exploited".

He's smarter than you are, gipper. But, as a libertarian, it's not surprising that you'd ignore labor economics to side with those that create class disparity.

Gipper · Jan 23, 2013

waas said:
He's smarter than you are, gipper. But, as a libertarian, it's not surprising that you'd ignore labor economics to side with those that create class disparity.

I gotta admit...you have balls to be a Marxist and lecture me about economics. It'd be like Michael Vick teaching me how to train my pet.

waas · Jan 23, 2013

Gipper said:
I gotta admit...you have balls to be a Marxist and lecture me about economics. It'd be like Michael Vick teaching me how to train my pet.

Likewise. You deviant corporatists haven't exactly become what you aspired to be either, have you? At least leftists embrace morality instead of dismissing it as a factor that inhibits growth.

Captain America · Jan 23, 2013

Just because I have the power does not mean I have to exert it. In fact, I would not want an employee to work for me if I have to "exert" anything on them.

My peeps look to me to lead them. Sometimes leading means letting them take the reigns every now and again and try them on for size. My valued employees are part of my company. My best part.

Keep in mind, I only have 3 full time people, so I can only speak from where I am coming from.

But my folks want to be there. They want to do good. They have great work ethic. We are all rowing the same canoe. We all have personal obligations and committments. We all look to our job to be able to provide for those things. What is good for one is good for all.

I couldn't "exert" that kind of attitude over them on my best day. It just happens.

But we all know who's nuts are in a vice there. But I don't need a "boss" name tag.

MoSurveyor · Jan 23, 2013

Captain America said:
Just because I have the power does not mean I have to exert it. In fact, I would not want an employee to work for me if I have to "exert" anything on them.

My peeps look to me to lead them. Sometimes leading means letting them take the reigns every now and again and try them on for size. My valued employees are part of my company. My best part.

Keep in mind, I only have 3 full time people, so I can only speak from where I am coming from.

But my folks want to be there. They want to do good. They have great work ethic. We are all rowing the same canoe. We all have personal obligations and committments. We all look to our job to be able to provide for those things. What is good for one is good for all.

I couldn't "exert" that kind of attitude over them on my best day. It just happens.

But we all know who's nuts are in a vice there. But I don't need a "boss" name tag.

Exactly! Being a boss means being a leader, not being bossy.

RabidAlpaca · Jan 24, 2013

waas said:
I actually feel the same way. I don't think you're of poor motivations, merely mistaken in how you define liberty. And despite my efforts, this debate was a dismal failure. It's simply that I understand your morality, and you in good faith side with thieves over the exploited. So, perhaps we should trade the titles of literature. :shrug:

Your definition of "liberty" seems to be that everyone gets a check from the government so that they don't feel "enslaved" by having to work. That's been your whole beef right? That people feel "forced" to work? Nevermind the money to send out these checks was taken at gun point.

I prefer to use the standard, actual definition of liberty. Not giving somebody something they want is not using force or aggression against them.

Henrin · Jan 24, 2013

KevinKohler said:
Any and all laws are a restriction on freedom...and if you think it's a given, then I must point out that THIS comment does not jive with... ...this comment.

Of course that is what I said, that is the point my post.

You contend that freedom with legal restrictions is a given. I would ask why?

No, I contend that with each restriction you lose freedom and never have the possibility to gain it back.

WHY must freedom be limited, no, inhibited, by laws? Do we not do this, impose this restriction on freedom, in order to promote a greater level of freedom?

People do in fact believe that and it is very much a dangerous view.

Seems to me, the idea flies just fine...I restrict their freedom to violate other people's rights...those rights, by and by, being the enablers of THEIR freedom. Without rights, without those restrictions on freedom, very very very few people would ever actually be anything remotely resembling "free".

I don't think merely punishing of right violations keeps us save or promotes freedom. It merely deals with something after it occurs and punishes the right violation.

See slavery. Much more than safety. If you think our rights exist only to keep us safe, then I gotta say...I over estimated you. The core of what we are discussing has everything to do with libertarianism, and the primary difference between a minarchist, and an anarchist. Minarchists exist on the moral slippery slope of compromise, and some would call them (me) a small L libertarian, as in, not hardcore. The more hardcore libertarians adhere religiously to the NAP, which, when taken to the extremes that they (you?) often do, equals no government, since government is, and always will be, the single largest initiator of force/aggression against others. I put question marks after you, because I'm still not sure where you sit. Sorry if you're offended, I meant none.

I'm pretty much only interested in rights and liberties from natural and scientific outlook and everything else is not my concern. Some will put schools and fire in there, but I will only use the functions that reach the ends I laid out to start out with. I don't believe I'm on a slippy slope since I established a foundation and understanding of rights and functions of government that can not not be added on too without scientific understanding expanding first. While surely the government would expand as time and understand grew using my system it would stay inside a fenced in area. The morality of the question doesn't seem to be involved since the foundation is established and understood at the start. Assuming of course that government doesn't do what it always does everything should be controlled.

Not paying someone for services rendered, IE, an income, is not optional, and is illegal. Ergo, tips, which are completely optional, is not income. It is a gift. I know...splitting hairs.

It is an economic actively that generated wealth in exchange for an individual's performance. How is that not income?

To compromise, I believe you are correct...gifts are NOT the most motivational thing out there. What motivates people are possibilities. The greater the odds of those possibilities coming to fruition, the more motivated people will be to achieve them. A stripper who thinks I am more likely to lay a big tip on her is gonna do more to impress me.

The tip wasn't the thing that motivated action. The money is the motivator in the lap dance which the desire for existed before the lap dance and possibility of income from it came up. Therefore, the gift is only taking advantage of a prior motivation. Its the same thing in MoSurveyor's example but instead of a lap dance it's bribery. In both examples the motivation isn't created by the example but prior motivations.

KevinKohler · Jan 24, 2013

=Henrin

No, I contend that with each restriction you lose freedom and never have the possibility to gain it back.

Freedoms are gained back all the time. And perhaps from a current standpoint, that is, looking at this country today, you would view any new restrictions (laws) as being freedom inhibitors. But go back to the drawing board, and picture the US without laws. There are some mighty fine examples of what happens when the law, and those that enforce it, are abandoned, just within the last decade.

People do in fact believe that and it is very much a dangerous view.

Explain how one is MORE free, as in, able to do what they want, when they want, without the rule of law, and a substantial force backing it.

I don't think merely punishing of right violations keeps us save or promotes freedom. It merely deals with something after it occurs and punishes the right violation.

The punishment is the deterrent. Ever hear of negative reinforcement? Yes, by the time someone is being punished, the crime is committed, and someone's rights have been violated...and that punishment is not going to UNviolate that person's rights. But, depending on the severity of the crime, the punishment for the criminal will be such that it deters other would be criminals from engaging in similar behavior. And face facts...ALL humans are potential criminals. A criminal is a being created under a specific set of circumstances.

I'm pretty much only interested in rights and liberties from natural and scientific outlook and everything else is not my concern.

Explain natural and scientific rights. Until you do, the rest of what you posted is pointless.

It is an economic actively that generated wealth in exchange for an individual's performance. How is that not income?

Because income is obligatory, gifts are optional. IE, I hire that stripper to show up at a stag party...we negotiate a flat rate for her appearance...and I HAVE to pay her that, or it is a breach of contract, which is illegal. However, no one at the stag party needs pay her anything. Those tips she gets for her actual performance are not a part of her contract, are completely optional on the part of the dudes laying them on her, and are therefor not considered income. Not to me, anyway. Uncle Sam's greedy ass sees it differently.

The tip wasn't the thing that motivated action. The money is the motivator in the lap dance which the desire for existed before the lap dance and possibility of income from it came up. Therefore, the gift is only taking advantage of a prior motivation. Its the same thing in MoSurveyor's example but instead of a lap dance it's bribery. In both examples the motivation isn't created by the example but prior motivations.

Right. The possibility. It's possibility that motivates people. Money is nothing more than a means to an end. Maybe she wanted that 15 bucks to buy milk and eggs for her kids, maybe she wanted it to score a little pot, or maybe she wanted it to make the rent that month. In all of those instances, the money is just the middle man.

KevinKohler · Jan 24, 2013

waas said:
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.

An employer is not stealing from an employee. I had a job working for one place, and it sucked...so I left, and got a job working at another place. At no point did I have to fend of droves of armed guards to escape, or anything of the sort. I told them I was giving my two weeks, they counter offered to keep me there, I told them I'd think about it (IE, go suck a dick), and in two weeks time, walked out of that job, no issues at all, and into the next job, no issues at all. Because I was able to do this, nothing was STOLEN. Stealing labor implies that one is forced to work at a specific spot. And over my lifetime, I have never once, ever, been forced to work at a specific spot. Forced to work? Yes. I need to work to earn money to live. But that in no way makes me a wage slave. Now, do I feel it's unfortunate that we all have to work, in order to live? Sure. All I can say is, thanks, Eve, for the apple. Barring that, I simply don't think any other system is effective at both ensuring the best allocation of resources, and the highest possible degree of personal liberty. Those are the two sides of the scale, and they gotta be fairly balanced, in order for me to be happy. Granting me more personal freedom at the cost of misallocation of resources, and my freedom doesn't mean squat. Likewise, removing my personal freedom so that we can all have more, or the same amount of stuff...doesn't make me very happy either. So there needs to be a balance. Think of me as being a tight rope walker, between YOU, and the anarcho capitalists out there.

As for intellectual property...what's you counter proposal to it? The one's idea belongs to them, or that we should not have exclusive rights to concepts we develop? Thinking is labor (more so for SOME than for others...har har.), and concepts, plans, and ideas are the product of that labor. Are you suggesting we should not be able to own the fruits of our labor?

That intellectual property rights get abused...is not at stake here, because they ARE being abused by some. But to toss the idea out because of it? Much much worse, in my opinion.

waas · Jan 24, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
Your definition of "liberty" seems to be that everyone gets a check from the government so that they don't feel "enslaved" by having to work. That's been your whole beef right? That people feel "forced" to work? Nevermind the money to send out these checks was taken at gun point.

I prefer to use the standard, actual definition of liberty. Not giving somebody something they want is not using force or aggression against them.

You block out reality to remain within that narrow world presented to you by Rand, no? What I want is liberation for the working class, not a nanny state.

RabidAlpaca · Jan 24, 2013

waas said:
You block out reality to remain within that narrow world presented to you by Rand, no? What I want is liberation for the working class, not a nanny state.

It doesn't matter what you want. That could be a different topic altogether. What we are talking about is you defining someone offering someone else a job, that they can take or decline, as slavery and force, and anti-liberty, and anti-libertarian, and blah blah blah.

waas · Jan 24, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
It doesn't matter what you want. That could be a different topic altogether. What we are talking about is you defining someone offering someone else a job, that they can take or decline, as slavery and force, and anti-liberty, and anti-libertarian, and blah blah blah.

If you attack and lie about my definition of liberty, it's only fair that I correct you.

I can't comprehend how you could be so unable to understand the concepts I've laid before you over and over again. So this is what happens when you're backed into a corner.

RabidAlpaca · Jan 24, 2013

waas said:
If you attack and lie about my definition of liberty, it's only fair that I correct you.

I can't comprehend how you could be so unable to understand the concepts I've laid before you over and over again.

No, you made this thread because you wanted to try to get libertarians to agree with you, and yet we all resoundingly completely disagreed. The freedom of association is one of the single most important aspects of libertarianism.

I don't even recall anybody in this thread even acknowledging your insane idea that someone offering someone else voluntary employment was coercion.

waas · Jan 24, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
No, you made this thread because you wanted to try to get libertarians to agree with you, and yet we all resoundingly completely disagreed. The freedom of association is one of the single most important aspects of libertarianism.

I don't even recall anybody in this thread even acknowledging your insane idea that someone offering someone else voluntary employment was coercion.

Read up:

waas said:
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.

waas said:
In a capitalist, free market country with a large gap between rich and poor and a competitive market, one class ends up being exploited by another. The need to generate income, combined with competition for positions forces workers to take whatever positions they can get. If Mr. Bob quits his job, chances are that he won't find a better one, if he's employed at all. In reality, where competition exists, Joe may be stuck in his position, advancement depending upon the will of his employer.

waas said:
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.

waas said:
Is that a joke? Any entity exerting force over another is strictly against libertarian morality.

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.

waas said:
In a capitalist country competitive job market, what forces you to enter a contract is the need to generate income.

waas said:
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.

waas said:
You think creating a business is the same thing as creating wealth? Are you denying that it's the workers who maintain it through labor? Labor sustains the economy, not intellectual property.

waas said:
I explained to you that the need to generate income forces an employee to choose between unsavory employment options. And before you go on the expected tangent: No, when there're plenty of workers available, employers won't be forced to raise their offered wages to compete; inversely, employers with high offered wages will lower them to compete with institutions paying less.

waas said:
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.

You no longer have an excuse to misunderstand my ideas.

RabidAlpaca · Jan 24, 2013

waas said:
Read up:

You no longer have an excuse to misunderstand my ideas.

Sounds like your beef is with the government, and the economy in general. Somebody offering someone else a job that they can take or leave is under no definition coercion or force.

waas · Jan 24, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
Sounds like your beef is with the government, and the economy in general. Somebody offering someone else a job that they can take or leave is under no definition coercion or force.

You're 100% right there, but it's the current state of affairs that forces one into less than adequate positions.

RabidAlpaca · Jan 24, 2013

waas said:
You're 100% right there, but it's the current state of affairs that forces one into less than adequate positions.

So now that we've got past the initial BS of blaming people for hiring people. What would you actually do to fix the situation?

ReformCollege · Jan 24, 2013

StillBallin75 said:
I'm sorry, but that's a rather narrow definition of freedom. Just because I voluntarily sign an employment contract, it is not an indication that I possess liberty or that I am free in a broader sense of the word. It may simply be an indication that I chose the best option out of a menu of horrible options.

And that is called maximizing utility.

waas · Jan 24, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
So now that we've got past the initial BS of blaming people for hiring people. What would you actually do to fix the situation?

Well, my position hasn't changed. Until now, you were simply misunderstanding my rhetoric.

I'd do the following to fix it:
- Make higher education free and increase the number of technically oriented institutions.
- Establish independent workers' collectives.
- Replace the welfare program with a jobs guarantee program - see the Civilian Conservation Corps.
- Increase funding to regulatory agencies.
- Pass tax reform to make our brackets similar to those used in Germany.
- Set salary caps for executives.
- Put a hefty tax on inheritance.
- Increase funding to public high schools and require them to offer free tutoring for SAT/ACT.

Among other things.

Geoist · Jan 24, 2013

waas said:
Are you [still] a libertarian if you support business owners being able to exert power over employees?

The answers you receive may depend on the type of libertarian who answers.

For me, the question is a bit obscure. Should a business owner be allowed to exert the power to let go the employee if he/she does not perform the work to the employer's satisfaction? Sure. Does a business owner have a right to physically abuse his/her workers? Of course not.

Are you a libertarian if...

Are you a libertarian if you support this?

Yes

No

More options

MoSurveyor

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

MoSurveyor

waas

Gipper

waas

Gipper

waas

Captain America

Jedi Master

MoSurveyor

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

Henrin

KevinKohler

KevinKohler

waas

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

waas

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

waas

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

waas

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

ReformCollege

waas

Geoist