Thomas Ash

Exactly. Smith wasn't a 'no government' extremist. He justed supported free markets.

Thomas Ash

Yes, libertarians are incredibly dogmatics. Jonah Goldberg (who's actually a conservative, on <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/" target="_blank">National Review Online</a>) describes asking a libertarian whether they'd intervene with a drunken friend who wanted to commit suicide and would certainly be glad for your intervention the next morning. The answer? No, she'd at most use forceful rhetorical arguments.

ROTFLOL.

Thomas Ash

That's a good point. The reason why there aren't 'libertartian communes' is that libertarians tend to assert the absoluteness of rights, but offer no mechanism for ensuring that they're respected. So if some fundies don't like what you're saying, they could come round your house and bash you with bibles, and a pure libertarian would offer no way of stopping them. Eek!

(I like your website by the way. Is the fact that you can't initially see the text deliberate?)

Autonemesis

Well since libertarianism is the topic of the thread, I can hardly see how this isn't the place. If you don't have the time, how about a quick question that could be answered simply: In a libertarian society are corporations treated as natural persons by the law? Does government even have the right or power to issue or revoke corporate charters?

Autonemesis

Yes, they share with socialists a certain idealistic attitude regarding human nature. They see the masses of people as being better and smarter than they actually are, more involved and concerned with the state of affairs than they actually are, and more aware of and more willing to assert their own self-interest than they actually are.

Yes. But I put no thought into it, it's little more than a placeholder.

August Spies

to be honest I think that is just their rethoric I bet they relize what the outcome of their ideas would be just as much as a racist "seperate but equal" guy knows that it won't be equal.

Thomas Ash

Ah - to be honest, I was wondering why you'd buy a domain and a hosting service to advertise your hotmail e-mail address, and a pitter-pattering sound (what's it meant to be?)

elwoodblues

Sorry, I'm just still rather freaked out about Steven (MadMordigan). I don't much feel like engaging in a seriously knock-down, drag-out discussion. But I can answer short, honest questions.

I don't think so. We should probably be looking at other models for this kind of thing, because the one we're using divorces too much responsibility from the perpeatrators of various crimes. I still want a healthy distance put between investors and crimes committed without their knowledge, but executives should be held more accountable for criminal decisions.

You may be right about this. Even so, I think it's better to err too far in that direction than the other. If you coddle a child, expect very little of them, are impressed with any act of honesty and intelligence, lower the bar for them, they'll jump just high enough to clear that bar. And jump no higher. This really applies to anyone, it just applies especially to children.

Incidentally, I think that's one of the major things wrong with the public education system. It just doesn't expect anything out of kids anymore. Someone who doesn't get pregnant or OD before they graduate is considered a success story in many circles. Fuck that noise.

Oh, yeah, thanks August. Again giving us the benefit of the doubt there. Very generous of you. You really think I want things arranged so I can clamber over a mountain of dead bodies to get to the top, just to be at the top? Hell, man, I just want the best, freest possible chance to earn my way through, live my life as I see fit, care for my family and friends. I don't want society in a fucking pyramid. I much prefer the diamond we have right now, and would like to fatten the middle of that diamond, put a curve on the top (not by chopping off the tip, the most successful, but by pushing up from beneath). Shifting towards Libertarian ideas is the best way I see of achieving that end.

moon is the kind of guy who alleges that his opponents are disingenious in their stated beliefs, in order to undermine their position. You're not supposed to be like that, August. If you think my ideas are dumb and blind, at least give me the credit of being honestly dumb and blind, not a liar to boot.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: elwoodblues ]</p>

thefugitivesaint

oh elwood i don't think august is angling for that position here.

i have had many disagreements with you in the past but you do seem like a reasonable sort.

i think August would be forthright with his accusations and positions. August too is a reasonalbe sort even if he strikes this cynic as a bit naive in his ideals (which is not necessarily a negative in this accounting).

Thomas Ash:
Actually, Smiths project was a bit more detailed and grand in its intended scope. Smiths cleverly written revision of political economy and history was laden with descriptions which supposedly revealed the nature of economic activity. And yet, this exposition was strangly lacking in commentary concerning the most significant contemporary developments in British economic society. To sort of paraphrase Joan Thirsk, who spent a great deal of time drawing attention to Smiths deliberate ommission of fact or detail specifically when dealing with the delicate question of class conflict, Smith was not "concerned with the personal lives led by individuals" and could only formulate his theories by " detaching his theory from any sensitive consideration of the human beings whose labors created the wealth of nations." But, the daily lives of the people Smith ignored intruded into his life on a constant basis and Smith had to take some considerations into account such as the need to explain inequalities in the wages of labour.

Smith was an apologist for the rising middle class and his intended lesson was this: economic progress should and could only be explained in terms of the increasing role of voluntary actions of mutually consenting individuals, producers and consumers in the marketplace. Smith ignored the aspect of this development by which the State reinforced the reign of capital and the means by which it did (and continues to) do so.

When Smith, addressing historical developments leading to the environment of the rising middle class, unconsciously stumbled onto the classical theory of Primitive Accumulation he then fled from the imlications that this subject brought with it. Smith noticed that the poor laborer possessed a greater number of commodities but also less leisure time in the "new" system of economic development. Smith asked himself why such laborers, having led a self-sufficient lifestyle and with only a marginal need for a "market" would rationally choose to substitute commodities for free time. Smith did not even raise the possibility that this transformation may not have been voluntary and that most of the poor laborers actually resisted the incursion of the market into their self-sufficient lives (of cousre, Smith did not have patience for such uncomfortable intrusions of reality).

Leading directly from Smiths "conjectural history" is modern day Libertarianism. It too infers that the market is an expression of so-called "human nature" and that the line of progress from today's "market culture" can be traced directly back to the earliest interactions of our ancestors. This thesis is bullshit but do not attempt to explain this to most (read: not all) Libertarians. The entire theory his a bankrupt fiction constructed to support the viewpoints of a specific emerging class coming out of merchantalism. Smith was the adopted voice of this class and he did what he could to rationalize their position and justify their ascention.

Smith was also not adverse to using his power as a tax collector with the force fo the State behind him to collect fees. Smith new government had its place and that was in the role of enforcer and protector of the emerging market system.

Not all of Smiths ideas were horrible but he and i would have been on opposite sides of the debate.
-theSaint

emphryio

Good stuff Saint.

OK here's some questions for libertarians or whoever else.

Now I'm assuming that thanks to a free market economy we have competition. And competition is great! No one is expecting a free handout, everyone is working to be their best.... Except they're mostly working at an assembly line.. Say Toyota, (I was an engineer there once.) They're working their ass off at mind numbing work. The day shift starts ar 6:30 and you must show up half an hour early to prepare. Without overtime you leave at 3:15. (BTW, most people have to commute half an hour one way. So were talking maybe three, four hours outside of work for eating and miscellanous things.)

During work there is three 15 minute breaks and a half hour lunch. The rest is constant motion. Will you be the one to fuck up and stop the line? Constant stress and literally CONSTANT motion. If they don't make about 1000 cars during their shift, there is overtime whether you like it or not. (Happens half the time.) Peoples bodies fall apart all the time.

So they can quit. Then what? Many don't dare. They're stuck. Why do they have to work so hard at such mind numbing work? Because that's competition! Of course they could all go to college. But wait, if they all went to college, who would work on the assembly line? Well, lets just make college much harder. Let's increase the dropout rate and send students into mental breakdowns. Then they can go destroy their back installing engines on an assembly line.

What does a libertarian think of that situation?
What solutions do libertarian values offer? Am I not describing reality with a free market economy?
Or wait, do we just move the factory to Mexico and it's all OK now?

By the way, there is no union at the Toyota plant I'm describing.

Which reminds me of my wife's work place. Someone mailed out letters to everyone asking if they wanted to start a union. If a certain percentage returned the letters with their names, then there would be a vote.

NOBODY would dare return the letters because they were afraid the company actually mailed the letters and would find a way to fire anybody who returned them. (Actually supposedly a bunch of people returned the letters with the name of one particularly hated boss written in.)

For instance, one lady at this company had a reoccuring cyst forming on her uterus. She had medical insurance through the company. She was costing the company money and missing work because of her medical condition.

They found a way to fire her.

How do libertarian values stop this from happening?