The Philosophy of Liberty

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
I am very sympathetic to some libertarian principles, but the problem is, just as libertarians say socialism can not work because of human nature, the same goes for capitalism. Adam smith argued that free markets would lead to perfect liberty, but that is reliant upon people not manipulating the system, not creating monopolies and not using wealth to gain political influence to keep their monopoly.

Imperialist enterprise, such as say cocacola or Nestle, they have immense power, they can buy out competition, out price them and shut down any competition. Even if we got rid of the state there would still be a state, but one soley controlled by the ruling class with all the reforms working people have won over the years abolished.

And if you are a libertarian, you also have to be pro unrestricted immigration, pro child labour, anti LLC and anti minimum wage.

You can not choose what government intervention in the market is ok if you are a libertarian. So the reality is in the inner cities millions of children would be working. Production would come back to the first world but because immigration would be so constant global prices would level out, meaning your new wage would be around 2 dollars an hour for the highest and as little as 50 cents a day like in india and china.

With the removal of LLC’s that would mean opening a business would be extremely hard and seldom done, as you would be responsible for the debt of a failed enterprise, which means lengthy prison time and debtors jail, aswell as serfdom for the rest of your life or until you can pay off the debt.

If you couldn’t your next of kin would then owe it.

So now we have stateless prisons, where you could be locked up for as long as the people who make profit from it wish, which will be as long as possible, you will have zero real effective recourse and no state investigations or unbiased intervention, as if it is mere business from a market perspective, the people who control if you can go free and extremely biased to keep you in.

Add onto that the fact wealthy people will be able to pay judges huge amounts for bad convictions as there again will be no way to stop such corruption in an unfettered capitalist free market.

I think human nature is more of a roadblock to capitalism than any other system, because wealth creates influence and influence protects power. Power crushed competition with corruption and wealth, it has never not corrupted the markets. Not once, in any capitalist system.

[/quote]

I am certainly pro-immigration, anti-LLC, anti-minimum wage, and pro-legalizing child labor. None of those regulations are needed.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:
I’ve accidentally wandered into an apartment or two. Hell, one time I stumbled into a Lincoln Navigator limo full of puzzled black guys in Detroit after having one too many. Nobody responded with deadly force, thankfully.

If you lock your doors, you eliminate the drunk or accidental entry. If someone forces their way into your home when you have measures in place to keep honest people out, then you can reasonably conclude their intentions are not in your best interest. I would make contact with extreme prejudice in this situation. [/quote]

Simple thieves are not executed in modern society.

Why should you shoot someone on sight merely because they’ve broken into your house?

Like I said, it’s a whole different story entirely if you see that they have a weapon on them. Then you respond with whatever you got.

But attacking someone with lethal force, merely on the basis that they’ve broken into your home, doesn’t sit well with me.

See, you have to consider this. You said that you’ve accidentally wandered into random houses before. What if the owner forgot that he/she didn’t lock the door? I’m sorry to say, but this kind of behavior does seem to become more and more common as one gets older. My dad used to be really good with locking doors and remembering where his keys are and shit. Now, he regularly forgets to close the bloody garage door.

The only thing that “prevents” the owner from shooting you is the, imo at least, reasonable belief that people don’t pose a threat until they show themselves to be a threat.[/quote]

I wasn’t entirely disagreeing with your point. Like I said, I’ve walked into a few residences and I was not treated with hostility. I didn’t deserve to die because I walked into #202 instead of #203.

I didn’t say I would shoot someone on sight. I would simply confront them with a weapon at the ready if I knew my home was being broken into. Commands would be issued, and my response would be appropriate with their level of compliance.

I’m not in constant fear of ninjas raping my famly, but I’m not so naive to think no one would ever come into my home to do me wrong.

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
I am very sympathetic to some libertarian principles, but the problem is, just as libertarians say socialism can not work because of human nature, the same goes for capitalism. Adam smith argued that free markets would lead to perfect liberty, but that is reliant upon people not manipulating the system, not creating monopolies and not using wealth to gain political influence to keep their monopoly.

Imperialist enterprise, such as say cocacola or Nestle, they have immense power, they can buy out competition, out price them and shut down any competition. Even if we got rid of the state there would still be a state, but one soley controlled by the ruling class with all the reforms working people have won over the years abolished.

And if you are a libertarian, you also have to be pro unrestricted immigration, pro child labour, anti LLC and anti minimum wage.

You can not choose what government intervention in the market is ok if you are a libertarian. So the reality is in the inner cities millions of children would be working. Production would come back to the first world but because immigration would be so constant global prices would level out, meaning your new wage would be around 2 dollars an hour for the highest and as little as 50 cents a day like in india and china.

With the removal of LLC’s that would mean opening a business would be extremely hard and seldom done, as you would be responsible for the debt of a failed enterprise, which means lengthy prison time and debtors jail, aswell as serfdom for the rest of your life or until you can pay off the debt.

If you couldn’t your next of kin would then owe it.

So now we have stateless prisons, where you could be locked up for as long as the people who make profit from it wish, which will be as long as possible, you will have zero real effective recourse and no state investigations or unbiased intervention, as if it is mere business from a market perspective, the people who control if you can go free and extremely biased to keep you in.

Add onto that the fact wealthy people will be able to pay judges huge amounts for bad convictions as there again will be no way to stop such corruption in an unfettered capitalist free market.

I think human nature is more of a roadblock to capitalism than any other system, because wealth creates influence and influence protects power. Power crushed competition with corruption and wealth, it has never not corrupted the markets. Not once, in any capitalist system.

[/quote]

excellent post.

It is certainly a good idea to, if possible, make sure that the person walking around downstairs is not your son/daughter come to surprise you, or your neighbor who wants to call the cops because his house in on fire, or some other such unlikelihood. Beyond that, take a look at risk v. reward:

If you shoot, the worst possible case is that you’ve killed an unarmed intruder in your home.

If you don’t, the worst possible case is you get shot or otherwise killed yourself.

While neither of those is awesome, the former is far preferable to the latter. And it isn’t exactly surprising, either: If you’re in the home invasion business, can you really be all that indignant over getting shot at? You were, after all, asking for it pretty hard. People aren’t generally breaking into homes in order to give free hugs.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It is certainly a good idea to, if possible, make sure that the person walking around downstairs is not your son/daughter come to surprise you, or your neighbor who wants to call the cops because his house in on fire, or some other such unlikelihood. Beyond that, take a look at risk v. reward:

If you shoot, the worst possible case is that you’ve killed an unarmed intruder in your home.

If you don’t, the worst possible case is you get shot or otherwise killed yourself.

While neither of those is awesome, the former is far preferable to the latter. And it isn’t exactly surprising, either: If you’re in the home invasion business, can you really be all that indignant over getting shot at? You were, after all, asking for it pretty hard. People aren’t generally breaking into homes in order to give free hugs.[/quote]

If my neighbor creeps into my home to call the COPS because his house is on fire, he deserves to be shot.

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It is certainly a good idea to, if possible, make sure that the person walking around downstairs is not your son/daughter come to surprise you, or your neighbor who wants to call the cops because his house in on fire, or some other such unlikelihood. Beyond that, take a look at risk v. reward:

If you shoot, the worst possible case is that you’ve killed an unarmed intruder in your home.

If you don’t, the worst possible case is you get shot or otherwise killed yourself.

While neither of those is awesome, the former is far preferable to the latter. And it isn’t exactly surprising, either: If you’re in the home invasion business, can you really be all that indignant over getting shot at? You were, after all, asking for it pretty hard. People aren’t generally breaking into homes in order to give free hugs.[/quote]

If my neighbor creeps into my home to call the COPS because his house is on fire, he deserves to be shot. [/quote]

The poor guy is flustered and not thinking straight.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
An attacker(s) shows himself to be a threat the second he breaks into your house at 3 a.m. The luxury of a nice, little Q & A session with people who may very well wish you harm is fantasy. Fantasy belongs in the movies.
[/quote]

This is the only part worth responding to, because the rest are sensationalist bullshit that is about equivalent to whatever you seem to be reading into my posts, and is pretty much exemplified here.

Tell me where I wrote anything to the effect of “a nice, little Q & A” instead of you reading into my post far too deeply and making up bullshit that feeds your line of thought better.

Does it really take you 5 minutes to see if someone has a knife/gun/some type of weapon in their hand and for you to react accordingly?

Or maybe the intruder is a super ninja assassin who can kill you the moment he notices you are there with his super ninja throwing stars!

Or maybe he’s a former SEAL who actually knows how to aim and shoot with a pistol very very quickly, so he just shoots you dead the moment you alert him of your presence.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear, Mr. Magick Man, neither you nor any of the other 7 billion people on earth can see a concealed weapon at three in the morning in a dark house.[/quote]

Yes, because artificial light/light switches don’t exist. Gotta rely on Mr. Sun.

This is stupid. At this point we’re both just dealing with hypotheticals and we get nowhere.

I’m out.

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
I am very sympathetic to some libertarian principles, but the problem is, just as libertarians say socialism can not work because of human nature, the same goes for capitalism. Adam smith argued that free markets would lead to perfect liberty, but that is reliant upon people not manipulating the system, not creating monopolies and not using wealth to gain political influence to keep their monopoly.

Imperialist enterprise, such as say cocacola or Nestle, they have immense power, they can buy out competition, out price them and shut down any competition. Even if we got rid of the state there would still be a state, but one soley controlled by the ruling class with all the reforms working people have won over the years abolished.

And if you are a libertarian, you also have to be pro unrestricted immigration, pro child labour, anti LLC and anti minimum wage.

You can not choose what government intervention in the market is ok if you are a libertarian. So the reality is in the inner cities millions of children would be working. Production would come back to the first world but because immigration would be so constant global prices would level out, meaning your new wage would be around 2 dollars an hour for the highest and as little as 50 cents a day like in india and china.

With the removal of LLC’s that would mean opening a business would be extremely hard and seldom done, as you would be responsible for the debt of a failed enterprise, which means lengthy prison time and debtors jail, aswell as serfdom for the rest of your life or until you can pay off the debt.

If you couldn’t your next of kin would then owe it.

So now we have stateless prisons, where you could be locked up for as long as the people who make profit from it wish, which will be as long as possible, you will have zero real effective recourse and no state investigations or unbiased intervention, as if it is mere business from a market perspective, the people who control if you can go free and extremely biased to keep you in.

Add onto that the fact wealthy people will be able to pay judges huge amounts for bad convictions as there again will be no way to stop such corruption in an unfettered capitalist free market.

I think human nature is more of a roadblock to capitalism than any other system, because wealth creates influence and influence protects power. Power crushed competition with corruption and wealth, it has never not corrupted the markets. Not once, in any capitalist system.

[/quote]

Yes, government is a necessary evil. Like most thing in life, everything has a balance where things seem to work best.

Just because your POST has all the totalitarian leftists cheering (most don’t even realize they are totalitarian), doesn’t void the fact that you could swap out “capitalism” for “government”, change 1 or 2 details, and have this post be just as valid.

Capitalism is just a description of what people have been doing since the dawn of society. Government too. Both require small groups of people that have power over larger groups of people. People are people… Anarchy will never work, and a simple glance through human history proves this. Total government control will never work, and the same glance proves this as well. The key is the balance.

We have balance, for the most part… (Well, had balance depending on your perspective.) Again, a look through human history shows the closer to a free market a society is, the more prosperous it is, within reason, at least compared to centrally planned. We, as humans aren’t smart enough, live long enough, nor altruistic enough to centrally plan and have it work.

Totally free market is no different that totalitarian government control.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
I am very sympathetic to some libertarian principles, but the problem is, just as libertarians say socialism can not work because of human nature, the same goes for capitalism. Adam smith argued that free markets would lead to perfect liberty, but that is reliant upon people not manipulating the system, not creating monopolies and not using wealth to gain political influence to keep their monopoly.

Imperialist enterprise, such as say cocacola or Nestle, they have immense power, they can buy out competition, out price them and shut down any competition. Even if we got rid of the state there would still be a state, but one soley controlled by the ruling class with all the reforms working people have won over the years abolished.

And if you are a libertarian, you also have to be pro unrestricted immigration, pro child labour, anti LLC and anti minimum wage.

You can not choose what government intervention in the market is ok if you are a libertarian. So the reality is in the inner cities millions of children would be working. Production would come back to the first world but because immigration would be so constant global prices would level out, meaning your new wage would be around 2 dollars an hour for the highest and as little as 50 cents a day like in india and china.

With the removal of LLC’s that would mean opening a business would be extremely hard and seldom done, as you would be responsible for the debt of a failed enterprise, which means lengthy prison time and debtors jail, aswell as serfdom for the rest of your life or until you can pay off the debt.

If you couldn’t your next of kin would then owe it.

So now we have stateless prisons, where you could be locked up for as long as the people who make profit from it wish, which will be as long as possible, you will have zero real effective recourse and no state investigations or unbiased intervention, as if it is mere business from a market perspective, the people who control if you can go free and extremely biased to keep you in.

Add onto that the fact wealthy people will be able to pay judges huge amounts for bad convictions as there again will be no way to stop such corruption in an unfettered capitalist free market.

I think human nature is more of a roadblock to capitalism than any other system, because wealth creates influence and influence protects power. Power crushed competition with corruption and wealth, it has never not corrupted the markets. Not once, in any capitalist system.

[/quote]

Yes, government is a necessary evil. Like most thing in life, everything has a balance where things seem to work best.

Just because your POST has all the totalitarian leftists cheering (most don’t even realize they are totalitarian), doesn’t void the fact that you could swap out “capitalism” for “government”, change 1 or 2 details, and have this post be just as valid.

Capitalism is just a description of what people have been doing since the dawn of society. Government too. Both require small groups of people that have power over larger groups of people. People are people… Anarchy will never work, and a simple glance through human history proves this. Total government control will never work, and the same glance proves this as well. The key is the balance.

We have balance, for the most part… (Well, had balance depending on your perspective.) Again, a look through human history shows the closer to a free market a society is, the more prosperous it is, within reason, at least compared to centrally planned. We, as humans aren’t smart enough, live long enough, nor altruistic enough to centrally plan and have it work.

Totally free market is no different that totalitarian government control. [/quote]

Maybe you shouldn’t presume things, seeing as I am against statism, support prison abolition groups and don’t support the state as I believe it is inherently coercive and hierarchal.

I just don’t blindly ignore reality when it comes to unfettered capitalism inevitably leading to corruption, monopoly and then private states as opposed to one nation state.

If you would like to talk about it I would be genuinely interested and open minded to hear your views.

Also I do not mean to be rude, but capitalism is not just a description of what man has been doing since the dawn of time. Capitalism is the last epoch in history thus far, first it was barbarism stateless and we were fighting for a survival as a species. Hunter gather society was structured along semi communal lines, there was no real mode of production to speak of.

Then we had feudalism, production was done by individual workers, the guild master, the serf, constant hierarchies one upon another. No competition, peasantry worked on the rulers land. This mode of production was feudalism and lasted for a long time.

Then came capitalism and that revolutionised the productive mode. It started the division of labour, it was about competition and how much surplus value a business owner could extract from his workforce. It created the capitalist and the proletariat. It brought about private property in a realistic way, even though the workers owned nothing but hunger, it opened the possibility for what we see today, working people owning property like houses and cars.

It meant the rapid growth and industrialisation of the nation, improved conditions dramatically after only a couple of decades and it ushered in the epoch of capitalism.

Now if you didn’t know that very, very basic economic guideline, then maybe you should spent a while reading up some basic economic literature, some adam smith, some marx and bakunin etc. Because until you understand these very simple historical and contemporary economic factors you really can’t hold a realistic and honest debate.

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:

Maybe you shouldn’t presume things, [/quote]

I did no such thing. In fact I was basically, at least on some levels, agreeing with your point, with the notation that the argument could very easily be turned around and still be valid.

[quote]

If you would like to talk about it I would be genuinely interested and open minded to hear your views.[/quote]

Maybe I was unclear, but your response here tends to say differently than this sentence.

You’re not looking at my comment “big picture” enough. Stop focusing on production as a means to define and see it as a means to an end and my comment makes more sense.

Big picture… This is capitalism. Hunting and gathering is certainly production. Making of Bows, spears, pots, fires… All done by the people, and the fruits owned by the people doing the production.

Voluntary exchange with the exchangers keeping the windfalls of such an exchange has been happening since the first two people had an exchange.

No need for the personal attacks.

All economics does, with any real amount of accuracy is observe and describe what goes on around it, or better what HAS gone on around it. Its predictive value is very limited. That isn’t to say it is junk science, far from it, just that after certain basic principles, trying to delude my comment by washing it with irrelevant detail, isn’t going to lead anywhere. Nice try though.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
anti-LLC, [/quote]

Based on what?