What Would Happen if The Libertarian Party Rose?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Yes it IS an issue.

It “thrived”, thus worked, for certain people; with it being virtually impossible to work for others.

It also “thrived” due to the millions in servitude; from cotton and tobacco plantations to the docks; to the westward expansion of the railroads.

Hey…I love this Country as much as anyone…but I wish people would quit painting a picture like there was some type of “Camelot” that existed in the early part of the United States.

Mufasa

It is simply not true that capitalism worked because of slaves.

On the contrary, the more capital you have per worker the less slavery works because you cannot force someone to use highly sphisticated machinery efficiently.

My point still stands that those things were abolished because of libertarian principles.

lol. Yes! Everything good = because of libertarian principles.

How was the capital/worker back in those days? Lots of bulldozers to dig trenches and machines to pick cotton? And why would an organization choose capital over labor if labor costs were lower? Hell, what did the southerners at the time say about what would happen to their economy without slavery?

No, you should definitely choose a different angle from which to argue that libertarianism saved slaves and women. Good luck writing history to fit your ideology.

[/quote]

Well yes, IF human labor were to cost less.

However the accumulation of capital makes it so that it doesnt.

So I wonder what it is you are “laughing out loud” about?

And yes, the idea that all men are equal before the law is most definitely a libertarian one.

Feel free to look up who fought the aristocracies privileges.

To hedge your economic ignorance with a lack of knowledge when it comes to the history of ideas might make for some emotional consistency, that is bought at the price of a pretty warped world view though.

edited

82

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I didn’t say that Capitalism worked because of slavery.[/quote]

You claimed that it thrived due to the servitude of millions.

That is factually untrue, because there were slaves everywhere else and thrive they did not.

Those very ideas and capitalism,that is not possible without these ideas, freed those slaves though.

83

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Yes it IS an issue.

It “thrived”, thus worked, for certain people; with it being virtually impossible to work for others.

It also “thrived” due to the millions in servitude; from cotton and tobacco plantations to the docks; to the westward expansion of the railroads.

Hey…I love this Country as much as anyone…but I wish people would quit painting a picture like there was some type of “Camelot” that existed in the early part of the United States.

Mufasa

It is simply not true that capitalism worked because of slaves.

On the contrary, the more capital you have per worker the less slavery works because you cannot force someone to use highly sphisticated machinery efficiently.

My point still stands that those things were abolished because of libertarian principles.

lol. Yes! Everything good = because of libertarian principles.

How was the capital/worker back in those days? Lots of bulldozers to dig trenches and machines to pick cotton? And why would an organization choose capital over labor if labor costs were lower? Hell, what did the southerners at the time say about what would happen to their economy without slavery?

No, you should definitely choose a different angle from which to argue that libertarianism saved slaves and women. Good luck writing history to fit your ideology.

Well yes, IF human labor were to cost less.

However the accumulation of capital makes it so that it doesnt.

So I wonder what it is you are “laughing out loud” about?

And yes, the idea that all men are equal before the law is most definitely a libertarian one.

Feel free to look up who fought the aristocracies privileges.

To hedge your economic ignorance with a lack of knowledge when it comes to the history of ideas might make for some emotional consistency, that is bought at the price of a pretty warped world view though.

edited[/quote]

lol. Looked like I pushed some buttons, huh? When did the accumulation of capital make capital less expensive than slave labor? Can you put a year on it?

Again, there is an argument for libertarian ideals to eventually lead to the end of slavery. The accumulation of capital eventually making firms choose capital over labor is not the argument.

There is no doubt that my worldview is extremely warped because I don’t believe that slavery ended b/c of the libertarians and capital accumulation, no doubt. You won’t find me arguing that point.

84

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
When did the accumulation of capital make capital less expensive than slave labor? Can you put a year on it?
[/quote]

You ask the wrong question.

The accumulation of capital makes labor more expensive – even slaves. You cannot make a slave work more efficiently and that is what the accumulation of capital must lead to.

In a society where some people are turning to machinery and thus more efficient means of production slaves become increasingly less productive and thus more expensive to maintain – they will only ever produce a certain output and nothing more beyond that. It is common sense. Once capital accumulation starts to happen there is an incentive to move away from slavery to better utilize the means of production.

Some people understood this economic fact whether they believed in the libertarians principles that underly the immorality of slavery.

edited for clarity

85

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
So I am curious in earnest: do you consider it possible to establish a society which conforms (at least mostly) to libertarian principles?

It was called the United States of America and it was damn close for about a century…[/quote]

It was also an intensely divided society rife with class struggle that only intensified with industrialization. Which is why I don’t want a Libertarian society.

86

[quote]orion wrote:Maybe, but that was not the issue.

The point was that the economy thrived because of a lack of regulations.

You will notice that those abuses stopped because of the application of libertarian principles.[/quote]

OK. So your view is that the welfare of the majority is of no consequence, so long as the market is regulated, and that a “thriving economy” need not take into consideration inequality, poverty, or indeed anything but GDP. OK, well in those terms I would agree with everything you say.

87

He provided us with one of his deluded opinions not grounded in reality. Which is fine, as it’s his opinion, but he answered nothing.

Until you quit with your disingenuous talk of Utopia (which was nowhere mentioned, except by you), I’m not inclined to attempt any serious discussion with you.

88

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Yes it IS an issue.

It “thrived”, thus worked, for certain people; with it being virtually impossible to work for others.

It also “thrived” due to the millions in servitude; from cotton and tobacco plantations to the docks; to the westward expansion of the railroads.

Hey…I love this Country as much as anyone…but I wish people would quit painting a picture like there was some type of “Camelot” that existed in the early part of the United States.

Mufasa

The point is not to move backward but to move forward with what we know to be right and what works.

To say libertarianism doesn’t work by pointing to flaws in individuals in this country’s history is illogical.

That was not a flaw of libertarianism but of people inconsistently applying libertarianism.[/quote]

But it happened systematically on an enormous scale. Interesting that according to you, socialists have to make excuses for people like Mao and Pol Pot, who were nowhere close to following the principles of Marx and Engels, yet you don’t have to address conditions created by policies very similar to those that you advocate.

89

[quote]orion wrote:It is simply not true that capitalism worked because of slaves.

On the contrary, the more capital you have per worker the less slavery works because you cannot force someone to use highly sphisticated machinery efficiently.[/quote]

True, they weren’t slaves in a technical sense, but the horrid conditions and subsistence wages of the Industrial Revolution are well-documented. Libertarians are the only ones who ignore them.

And it is completely wrong. They were abolished, because workers gradually came together and FORCED them to be abolished. The capitalists opposed them all the way. So generally did the government.

90

It does no such thing. The cost of labor is its maintenance (by which, in the interest of brevity, I comprehend more than simply subsistence [and in this more basic sense, it is obvious that even slaves have a cost]). For a single position, in a single industry, accumulation of capital enables more goods to be produced by an equal quantity of labor, making the worker’s maintenance a smaller portion of the goods he produces. On the scale of the whole economy, the increased division of labor which accompanies this accumulation causes skilled positions to be broken into unskilled positions which, by rendering a greater number of people capable of performing the work, increases the competition amongst workers and lowers their wages.

91

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Yes it IS an issue.

It “thrived”, thus worked, for certain people; with it being virtually impossible to work for others.

It also “thrived” due to the millions in servitude; from cotton and tobacco plantations to the docks; to the westward expansion of the railroads.

Hey…I love this Country as much as anyone…but I wish people would quit painting a picture like there was some type of “Camelot” that existed in the early part of the United States.

Mufasa

It is simply not true that capitalism worked because of slaves.

On the contrary, the more capital you have per worker the less slavery works because you cannot force someone to use highly sphisticated machinery efficiently.

My point still stands that those things were abolished because of libertarian principles.

lol. Yes! Everything good = because of libertarian principles.

How was the capital/worker back in those days? Lots of bulldozers to dig trenches and machines to pick cotton? And why would an organization choose capital over labor if labor costs were lower? Hell, what did the southerners at the time say about what would happen to their economy without slavery?

No, you should definitely choose a different angle from which to argue that libertarianism saved slaves and women. Good luck writing history to fit your ideology.

Well yes, IF human labor were to cost less.

However the accumulation of capital makes it so that it doesnt.

So I wonder what it is you are “laughing out loud” about?

And yes, the idea that all men are equal before the law is most definitely a libertarian one.

Feel free to look up who fought the aristocracies privileges.

To hedge your economic ignorance with a lack of knowledge when it comes to the history of ideas might make for some emotional consistency, that is bought at the price of a pretty warped world view though.

edited

lol. Looked like I pushed some buttons, huh? When did the accumulation of capital make capital less expensive than slave labor? Can you put a year on it?

Again, there is an argument for libertarian ideals to eventually lead to the end of slavery. The accumulation of capital eventually making firms choose capital over labor is not the argument.

There is no doubt that my worldview is extremely warped because I don’t believe that slavery ended b/c of the libertarians and capital accumulation, no doubt. You won’t find me arguing that point.
[/quote]

Capital needs to be operated.

Heavy machinery requires skilled personal.

Training to work that heavy machinery is expensive and takes time.

You cannot whip slaves to learn how to operate sophisticate machinery and to use them efficiently because they try to get away with doing as little work as possible.

Free people working heavy machinery are more productive than slave labor because they get to keep what they earn and have superior tools.

Slave labor no longer pays off and disappears because it is out competed by free men using more capital.

You really think we would not have slavery right now if it was still good business?

92

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Maybe, but that was not the issue.

The point was that the economy thrived because of a lack of regulations.

You will notice that those abuses stopped because of the application of libertarian principles.

OK. So your view is that the welfare of the majority is of no consequence, so long as the market is regulated, and that a “thriving economy” need not take into consideration inequality, poverty, or indeed anything but GDP. OK, well in those terms I would agree with everything you say.

[/quote]

My view is that the welfare of the majority is greatest where economic liberty is the highest.

I also claim that those wealth was not due to people being enslaved because they were also enslaved elsewhere. The wealth created was not created because so many people were enslaved but because so many people were free.

Since the rise of average income is indeed linked to capitalism which makes for some inequality I am indeed welcoming that inequality. You cannot change that without making the cake smaller for all involved which hits the poorest people the hardest.

You are also ignoring that I am against redistribution because it means that other people have the right to benefit from your labor against your will which is the ugly principle behind servitude and slavery.

93

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:It is simply not true that capitalism worked because of slaves.

On the contrary, the more capital you have per worker the less slavery works because you cannot force someone to use highly sphisticated machinery efficiently.

True, they weren’t slaves in a technical sense, but the horrid conditions and subsistence wages of the Industrial Revolution are well-documented. Libertarians are the only ones who ignore them.

My point still stands that those things were abolished because of libertarian principles.

And it is completely wrong. They were abolished, because workers gradually came together and FORCED them to be abolished. The capitalists opposed them all the way. So generally did the government.
[/quote]

We do not ignore them.

We just think that it is self evident that the people who flocked to the cities to work in factories must have already been there before the industrial revolution.

Since they lived off of subsistence agriculture, petty crime, begging and prostitution it made sense to spread as evenly across the land as they could.

They immediately moved to the cities when the word spread that they could find work there so those conditions were better than what they had at home.

True, it was dirty, smelly and crime ridden, but what to you expect when a city like Manchester ballooned from 10000 people to 80000 in a mere 2 decades?

You second claim is also incorrect.

Capitalists provided work for women, children and freed or fled slaves because contrary to what most people believe capitalist do not care about race, age or gender but about profit.

Nobody had to force them to do anything when it simply was good business.

94

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:The accumulation of capital makes labor more expensive – even slaves. You cannot make a slave work more efficiently and that is what the accumulation of capital must lead to.

It does no such thing. The cost of labor is its maintenance (by which, in the interest of brevity, I comprehend more than simply subsistence [and in this more basic sense, it is obvious that even slaves have a cost]). For a single position, in a single industry, accumulation of capital enables more goods to be produced by an equal quantity of labor, making the worker’s maintenance a smaller portion of the goods he produces. On the scale of the whole economy, the increased division of labor which accompanies this accumulation causes skilled positions to be broken into unskilled positions which, by rendering a greater number of people capable of performing the work, increases the competition amongst workers and lowers their wages.

[/quote]

And yet their wages are higher than ever before.

So somehow your theory must be wrong.

Hint: Wages are determined by productivity.

95

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:The accumulation of capital makes labor more expensive – even slaves. You cannot make a slave work more efficiently and that is what the accumulation of capital must lead to.

It does no such thing. The cost of labor is its maintenance (by which, in the interest of brevity, I comprehend more than simply subsistence [and in this more basic sense, it is obvious that even slaves have a cost]). For a single position, in a single industry, accumulation of capital enables more goods to be produced by an equal quantity of labor, making the worker’s maintenance a smaller portion of the goods he produces. On the scale of the whole economy, the increased division of labor which accompanies this accumulation causes skilled positions to be broken into unskilled positions which, by rendering a greater number of people capable of performing the work, increases the competition amongst workers and lowers their wages.

[/quote]

Oh, simpleton. You’re hopeless.

If you don’t understand I cannot help you.

96

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Looked like I pushed some buttons, huh? When did the accumulation of capital make capital less expensive than slave labor? Can you put a year on it?

Again, there is an argument for libertarian ideals to eventually lead to the end of slavery. The accumulation of capital eventually making firms choose capital over labor is not the argument.

There is no doubt that my worldview is extremely warped because I don’t believe that slavery ended b/c of the libertarians and capital accumulation, no doubt. You won’t find me arguing that point.

Capital needs to be operated.

Heavy machinery requires skilled personal.

Training to work that heavy machinery is expensive and takes time.

You cannot whip slaves to learn how to operate sophisticate machinery and to use them efficiently because they try to get away with doing as little work as possible.

Free people working heavy machinery are more productive than slave labor because they get to keep what they earn and have superior tools.

Slave labor no longer pays off and disappears because it is out competed by free men using more capital.

You really think we would not have slavery right now if it was still good business?[/quote]

What did those who had slaves at the time think? Did they think it was good business? How high a cost were they willing to pay to keep their slaves? Was it capital accumulation that made it “bad business” or something else?

Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

97

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

[/quote]

…chinese girls who clean nectarine parts with draino for a buck fifty comes to mind. The company doesn’t have to feed or cloth them, and seeing that starvation or whoring is their only other option, it’s slavery in disguise, imo…

98

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

…chinese girls who clean nectarine parts with draino for a buck fifty comes to mind. The company doesn’t have to feed or cloth them, and seeing that starvation or whoring is their only other option, it’s slavery in disguise, imo…[/quote]

The fact that the owner does not clothe, feed, and shelter them means he understands how unprofitable slaves really are in this profession! Thanks for making our point for us.

And they are not really slaves either. If prostitution were a better option then they would have chosen that instead. The fact that they choose otherwise means they prefer cleaning nectarine parts. I didn’t even realize that was a job.

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:Put another way, are there, today, still industries that require large amounts of labor and low capital? What explains why these firms chose not to use slaves?

…chinese girls who clean nectarine parts with draino for a buck fifty comes to mind. The company doesn’t have to feed or cloth them, and seeing that starvation or whoring is their only other option, it’s slavery in disguise, imo…

The fact that the owner does not clothe, feed, and shelter them means he understands how unprofitable slaves really are in this profession! Thanks for making our point for us.

And they are not really slaves either. If prostitution were a better option then they would have chosen that instead. The fact that they choose otherwise means they prefer cleaning nectarine parts. I didn’t even realize that was a job.[/quote]

…i wasn’t making your point actually. The cold reality is that, in our current semi-capitalist free market, many workers are worse off than slaves. And you’re really not that disconnected that you’d think that prostitution to stay alive is actually a carriere choice, are you?

100

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i wasn’t making your point actually. The cold reality is that, in our current semi-capitalist free market, many workers are worse off than slaves. And you’re really not that disconnected that you’d think that prostitution to stay alive is actually a carriere choice, are you?
[/quote]
I think you are being very disingenuous. Are you saying you would rather be the property of someone else than be able to make the choice between cleaning nectarines and prostitution? Besides, you cannot say for certain those are the only choices these people have – there are many other choices you cannot see. You make light of slavery and the ill effects it really has on people.

Prostitution is a career choice for many. It is no less valid a service than massage, dancing naked, porn, acting, or the arts. People genuinely find value in these services and are willing to pay top-dollar for them.